Support NeoGAF

[VicDaMoan03]

With the success for PS4 and XB1 launch numbers I think Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo will be in a hurry to beat each other next gen. The reason this gen lasted so long is because they were worried new consoles wouldn't sell well with the bad economy + other factors (mobile, etc.).

 

[KojiKnight]

Phone-makers make money off their phones. Console-makers lose money off their consoles. A 4 year cycle means a heavy R&D and manufacturing round of costs sooner, resulting in less time to recuperate from launch losses.

A simplified hardware R&D process could cut costs and could lead to shorter and more profitable cycles (in fact, I'd say moving to PC like architecture that was part of the goal)

 

[Gucci Messiah]

With the success for PS4 and XB1 launch numbers I think Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo will be in a hurry to beat each other next gen. The reason this gen lasted so long is because they were worried new consoles wouldn't sell well with the bad economy + other factors (mobile, etc.).

The economy is still bad and mobile has gotten even bigger

 

[flkraven]

Normally I don't care about backwards compatibility, but I'd be happy paying an extra $100 for consoles if they were:

a) More frequently released/updated
b) Backwards compatible

Alternatively, it would be cool if they released a 'half' upgrade, sort of how PCs upgrade a video card.

ie. Let's say 3 years from now we get a PS4.5. Similar compentents dialed up: 16GB GDDR5, boost the CPU/GPU clock speed (with the same main board and design), 2TB HDD. When you put in a standard PS4 game it would play fine since it is nearly the exact same box with boosted memory and videocard, but it would allow a mid-generation bump in performance to new games.

I'm probably way off base and there are more than likely a ton of disadvantages to this strategy, but I just thought it's a neat idea. A big reason annualized releases of phones and tablets work is because all the old apps and shit still generally works, and all the new stuff can still be mostly done on the older model (only slower). If this can't be translated to consoles, then a 5-6 year cycle will continue to be the norm.

 

[Caayn]

My predictions is that we'll see the PS5 in 2019~2020.

Next year Sony will announce new colors(white) and start with special editions PS4s. In 2016 they'll announce a slim model.

Already PS4 is using a 1.84Tflop GPU. They will wait till they can upgrade the GPU to 10 or 12TFlops before announcing the next gen. Till then it will be price cuts, slim, super-slim models.

Next-gen needs to have a 15+TFLOPS GPU in my eyes. Current high-end GPUs are already past the 5TFLOPS mark.

 

[moltonasty]

I would expect a 5 year cycle this time around. BTW why exactly was the cycle so damn long last time? Stock market crash/bad economy?

 

[The Praiseworthy]

Anyone else want a ps5 in 2017?

Dear god no!!

6 years life cycle is perfect... any sooner won't be.

 

[Error404]

Phone-makers make money off their phones. Console-makers lose money off their consoles. A 4 year cycle means a heavy R&D and manufacturing round of costs sooner, resulting in less time to recuperate from launch losses.

that is no longer true. both consoles are being sold at profit at launch do they will make money fast

 

[googleplex]

Phone-makers make money off their phones. Console-makers lose money off their consoles. A 4 year cycle means a heavy R&D and manufacturing round of costs sooner, resulting in less time to recuperate from launch losses.

Actually this may no longer be the case and the OP could be correct. If the current PS4 design is easily scalable the vast majority of the development for the PS4's successor may have already been done.

Theoretically Sony could perhaps release a PS4"S" that twice as powerful for $400 in two years that's specifically made for VR games that is also 100% backwards compatible with all PS4 software and Apps.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

Best design in terms of ease of development since the PS1.

PS4 is awesome. Its library will be massive since it is easy to program for and relatively powerful.

 

[entremet]

5 years is really the best. I hate long cycles.

 

[z0m3le]

Considering the longer development cycles, I imagine 4 years is too short for the PS4... 5 maybe but really 6-8 would make the most sense for the device, especially with how it is taking off...

 

[FonkyByNature]

I would love 4-5 years console cycle max. This past gen has been going for way too long.

 

[vg260]

Shorter console cycles and backwards compatibility, please.

 

[muddream]

Going back to the typical 6-year-cycle seems sensible. I'd expect another x86 machine, ARM doesn't offer a lot of upsides for a console from what I can tell and keeping the short dev cycles and backwards compatibility makes sense. What will be interesting is how Intel running away in terms of die shrinks will affect the CPU/GPU choice..perhaps both Nvidia and AMD will walk away empty handed.

 

[OldAsUrSock]

lol, no thanks!

Even though those would be better for gaming they wont be suitable for the average guy.

 

[Jigolo]

Naturally this gen is going to be shorter than last gen because of how fast tech is advancing now a days.

 

[monlo]

I fucking hope so

 

[lefantome]

yep, every Ps4 will disintegrate after 5 years.
Haveyou seen the text : "Best before 2019" on the package?





I hope Ps5 will be out by 2019. 5-6 years is good enough.

 

[VicDaMoan03]

The economy is still bad and mobile has gotten even bigger

Agree but despite all that the XB1 and PS4 have sold very well. I'm saying that will encourage MS and Sony to release consoles sooner this time.

 

[OneUh8]

I would love to see a 5-6 year cycle at the most. Now that they are on the x86 architecture, they will probably stick with it moving forward. So we will hopefully get BC and easy development moving forward. I am all for that.

 

[Mr_Antimatter]

I don't think we will see any major hardware upgrades for at least five years, but I do think that the APU design was chosen so that their would be an easy upgrade path for the ps5, 6 etc.

Just use whatever the latest APU is, along side some fast ram, and some silicon tweaks learned from previous consoles. Should also help with backward compatibility.

Ditto for the Vita. Latest mobile tech in each one with a few tweaks. should be cheap and easy.

 

[grkazan12]

I definitely think that PS4 was designed for a shorter cycle when compared to last gen. I feel that this gen should last about 5 years. The PS5 could theoretically would be able to handle 4k resolutions and I'm sure Sony would want their games to be native 4k to show off their new 4k TV sets. The PS5 could also be ready for VR if it ever become a hit.

My favorite aspect of a PS5 in five years is that I expect backwards compatibility to be a given because of the shared X86 compatibility and it being basically another PC.

 

[Omnistalgic]

Normally I don't care about backwards compatibility, but I'd be happy paying an extra $100 for consoles if they were:

a) More frequently released/updated
b) Backwards compatible

Alternatively, it would be cool if they released a 'half' upgrade, sort of how PCs upgrade a video card.

ie. Let's say 3 years from now we get a PS4.5. Similar compentents dialed up: 16GB GDDR5, boost the CPU/GPU clock speed (with the same main board and design), 2TB HDD. When you put in a standard PS4 game it would play fine since it is nearly the exact same box with boosted memory and videocard, but it would allow a mid-generation bump in performance to new games.

I'm probably way off base and there are more than likely a ton of disadvantages to this strategy, but I just thought it's a neat idea. A big reason annualized releases of phones and tablets work is because all the old apps and shit still generally works, and all the new stuff can still be mostly done on the older model (only slower). If this can't be translated to consoles, then a 5-6 year cycle will continue to be the norm.

That's exactly my line of thinking...what are the disadvantages for this kind of market? Not as much wow factor?

 

[Vooduu]

It's going to last just as long as last gen. R&D and other factors cost too much money and time to release consoles every 4-5 years.

 

[Midou]

2017 seems good, start saving now and it'll be like free.

 

[Chettlar]

There's a lot more faith in Sony maintaining backwards compatibility in here then I think is justified. They've purchased gaikai and made PS Now. They've discovered purple will repurchase HD editions of old games. They've shown no hint at emulating ps1/ps2 games even though the hardware souls be powerful enough.

BC is dead despite being technically possible going forward.

While I do feel this post is a bit too pessimistic, it certainly is something I can see happening. I hope not.

 

[RoboPlato]

There's a lot more faith in Sony maintaining backwards compatibility in here then I think is justified. They've purchased gaikai and made PS Now. They've discovered purple will repurchase HD editions of old games. They've shown no hint at emulating ps1/ps2 games even though the hardware souls be powerful enough.

BC is dead despite being technically possible going forward.

I think the success of PSNow will be a major factor. If it bombs, then BC is more likely.

 

[ramuh]

That's exactly my line of thinking...what are the disadvantages for this kind of market? Not as much wow factor?

I would say there is less of a Wow factor involved, sure. At the end of a 5-7 year cycle, gamers are craving the next release. If they decided to go this PS4.5 route, it could split the market. Although on the same architecture with greater scalable graphics, you don't get the same punch as you do as a Five year minimum cycle. Take that and the developers have to spent money/labor on upgrading for the PS4.5 (easier if engine is done well). It's a different type of market from the tablets and smartphones IMO. Those devices usually travel with us, and as such are more crucial to upgrade first.

 

[erawsd]

Watching a few of cernys interviews, seems like the PC like design of ps4 was made for ease of use and streamlining development, so I'm assuming this is the architecture is the way forward for Sony.

with things like oculus and the constant increase in resolutions and visual enhancements, I would think sony has designed ps4 to have a shorter life cycle to stay up to date with recent tech and to keep the industry excited more with more frequent new releases. If ps4 is backwards compatible going forward because of the x86 architecture, wouldn't a faster cycle be more appropriate?

Year 2 ps4 is redesigned

Year 4 more colors and a further design change

Early year 5 or even at the end of year 4 new hardware. Both platforms stay heavily supported for the following years and I would assume it would be similar to simply having a last year phone and many ppl would be content with ps4 while the hardcore don't have to wait 7 years for new hardware.

at least I hope this is Sonys mindset. Anyone else want a ps5 in 2017?

I mean what is so bad about smaller incremental tech increases to consoles anyway S long as the systems stay compatible? Smartphones tablets have a lot of success this way...

I could def see consoles following the PC/mobile path of more frequent refreshes, every 1-2 years.

So we end up with quick spec upgrades on the Playstation @ $400 and the older models drop in price. However, unlike now, all games are compatible with all models of Playstation, its just a difference of Ultra vs high graphic settings.

I don't think game development would be too affected, modern game engines have tremendous scalability anyway.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Who cares about backwards compatibility with Gaikai? If they offer something like an instant backlog, then there won't be much reason to hang onto my PS3.

Anyone who doesn't want to deal with the latency of an Internet connection when it comes to communicating button presses?

 

[ramuh]

I could def see consoles following the PC/mobile path of more frequent refreshes, every 1-2 years.

So we end up with quick spec upgrades on the Playstation @ $400 and the older models drop in price. However, unlike now, all games are compatible with all models of Playstation, its just a difference of Ultra vs high graphic settings.

I don't think game development would be too affected, modern game engines have tremendous scalability anyway.

I personally don't. They have gone the x86 way so it is more in line with PCs, but the average consumer they are targeting will not be impressed by just 1-2 year refreshes. And whats in these refreshes? I'm fine with hard-drive, or better components or wifi card but I don't see them making any more changes to that. Plus what would you call it? A name carries weight in the console industry. PS4.1? or something. IMO I just see average peeps waiting till the PS5 comes out that does more than incremental changes. Although not relevant I do remember the crap-tastic way that SEGA handled the Genesis, Sega-CD, 32X and Saturn all in a short span. It didn't work. Even with some backwards compatibility (32x-genesis).

 

[infiniteheteroskdasticity]

That's pretty obvious. Minus another massive global economic meltdown you can take it as written that we won't have another 8 year cycle. I expect we'll probably get the next consoles in 4-5 years at most. If VR does indeed turn out to be the next big thing, the PS4 and even more the Xbox One do not have the grunt to drive two screens in the resolutions and framerates needed while maintaining all the graphical effects we've grown used to. I don't think the internet will be robust enough to make a full streaming service viable so we'll definitely need new hardware. x86 pretty much guarantees easy backwards compatibility the next go around so it'll almost certainly be simpler to convince people to buy new consoles. Funnily I think enough the next, next gen is already here. I look at Playstation Now as some sort of pre alpha of the PS6.

 

[Hidden One]

PS5 will come out November 20th 2020!

Spoiler

I am from the future.

 

[mr_toa]

He designed it with a $399.99 price tag in mind.

That was most likely one of the principal factors driving the design.

Recalling some of the interviews from E3 2013, Sony were very, very price focused when planning and designed the PS4 - looking to ensure they has both an attractive pricepoint in the market place and room to maneuvre compared to their competition.

A shorter cycle, which does seem likely, is probably more of a derived result than a direct design goal.

 

[Pain]

That would actually be kinda bad. No way PS4 can be pushed to its pints in only 4 or 5 years. For a dev like Naughty Dog that is only like 2 games.

 

[infiniteheteroskdasticity]

That would actually be kinda bad. No way PS4 can be pushed to its pints in only 4 or 5 years. For a dev like Naughty Dog that is only like 2 games.

With no tricky bespoke processor to deal with. I think they'll start maxing out these consoles relatively early on.

 

[erawsd]

I personally don't. They have gone the x86 way so it is more in line with PCs, but the average consumer they are targeting will not be impressed by just 1-2 year refreshes.

Who knows what the average consumer is impressed by? Tablets, Smartphones, and gaming PC sales are surging on similar models. The backward/forward compatibility and scalability of the software makes it feel good to upgrade those devices.

And whats in these refreshes? I'm fine with hard-drive, or better components or wifi card but I don't see them making any more changes to that. Plus what would you call it? A name carries weight in the console industry. PS4.1? or something. IMO I just see average peeps waiting till the PS5 comes out that does more than incremental changes.

I was thinking primarily a bump in CPU/GPU as an upgrade, other components could be improved as well though. They could call it anything. Apple has gone from iPad > iPad 2 > new iPad > iPad 4th gen, iPad Air... name confusion hasn't stopped them from selling many millions of the things.

Although not relevant I do remember the crap-tastic way that SEGA handled the Genesis, Sega-CD, 32X and Saturn all in a short span. It didn't work. Even with some backwards compatibility (32x-genesis).

As you said, thats not really relevant. SEGA CD was a mess and barely had any decent games. 32X was same and was almost insulting after people had seen what the PS1 and "Ultra 64" could do. Besides, I'd say all those things were more like successors than the type of hardware refresh I'm talking about where you have "total" compatibility that also makes the old stuff look and play better.

 

[block tower]

i'll be pissed if thats the case. for people who lead busy lives with work/school/dating/families; a longer life cycle allows for people to enjoy game releases at a steady but slow pace, i think some people on gaf just want something new for the sake of something being new.

i still dont feel like the 7th generation was fleshed out fully when it comes to creativity in games. the 7th gen was mostly sequels, fps's, and me too games; all while trying to find every way possible to suck content out of these games but ask for more money to play them. what exactly is necessary about having arbitrary new generations if the problems in the previous generations (that aren't due to technically issues) aren't fix?

 

[googleplex]

The Ideal of a Modular "Upgradeable" console or linkable/chainable consoles has always been an interesting ideal to me.

For instance, In two years time when the PS4 is $299. I wouldn't be opposed to the Ideal of buying another PS4 to daisy chain them for Perfect frame rate in VR. Sony used 2 PS3's years ago to show off stereoscopic 3D on GT5.

 

[TheFLYINGManga_Ka]

Gosh, it just started and millions have sold, so I highly doubt it'll be out under five years, other than a couple of redesigns.

It was designed to have a balance of being poweful yet affordable, which I think they achieved that.

The tech will always be with the $$$$$ PC market. The console market had always been different in that it's not really all gamers that make it up. I think most people will be content with Call of Duty, Battlefield, and their sports games looking pretty good, and most won't care about the tech stuff. GTAV is proof that people don't care all that much about graphics. NBA 2K looks pretty amazing and I can't wait to see the Show in action. It will get better as well.

Also, this is just coming from being a console gamer for such a long time, I think most people wont like the idea of upgrading so soon. A big part of owning a console is the assurance that what you're buying will last a good long time. Two-three year is too soon. Five is a good mark.

I think most console owners are satisfied with that, so I don't see a shorter life cycle. Five years minimum, six-seven will be its twilight years...which is around the time we finally get Kingdom Hearts 3!

 

[acm2000]

Both Sony and ms cheaped out on hardware that's all there is to say, Sony couldn't afford to lose hundreds on every console sold this time and ms followed suit

 

[Novocaine]

Am I in the minority when I say that I enjoy the longer console cycles? I still think that a lot of 360/PS3 games look absolutely amazing despite the aging hardware. I hope that the PS4 last at least 6 years. I'm seeing people say 2-4 years and I'm blown away. Consumerism is a muthafucker lol.

Nope, I actually like the fact the last cycle ran so long myself. The systems were still pushing out high quality games until the end.

 

[kyser73]

Normally I don't care about backwards compatibility, but I'd be happy paying an extra $100 for consoles if they were:

a) More frequently released/updated
b) Backwards compatible

Alternatively, it would be cool if they released a 'half' upgrade, sort of how PCs upgrade a video card.

ie. Let's say 3 years from now we get a PS4.5. Similar compentents dialed up: 16GB GDDR5, boost the CPU/GPU clock speed (with the same main board and design), 2TB HDD. When you put in a standard PS4 game it would play fine since it is nearly the exact same box with boosted memory and videocard, but it would allow a mid-generation bump in performance to new games.

I'm probably way off base and there are more than likely a ton of disadvantages to this strategy, but I just thought it's a neat idea. A big reason annualized releases of phones and tablets work is because all the old apps and shit still generally works, and all the new stuff can still be mostly done on the older model (only slower). If this can't be translated to consoles, then a 5-6 year cycle will continue to be the norm.

Completely defeats the point of writing to a single platform spec, which is one of the consoles' main advantages. You'd end up with gimped games in either direction - optimised for the .5 version compromised for OG boxes, or gimped .5 to work well on the OG.

There is precedent for this BTW - the C128 & Spectrum 128, both of which had more memory & updated processors that ran existing games brilliantly (esp the C128) but there were virtually no native-written games because the install base was with the c64 & 48k Spectrum.

 

[Omnistalgic]

bumped this...

because I wanted to toot my own horn a little ;0) but more importantly, I'm sure people have said this throughout their time on GAF and most replies have been negative or filled with disbelief at the thought.

Now here we are, with rumors of PS4k and X1.5 coming as soon as this year possibly. I mean, wow. I just wanted to make a thread where it wasn't so filled with worry about the possible negative outcome of refreshing mid-gen.

I think this could be good anyway, at least I'm eager to see it through before I'm saying Sony is screwing me over for buying a PS4 in 2013.

 

[WolvenOne]

Keep in mind that the pS360 were designed during a moderate economic boom period. Conversely, the PS4 and X1 were designed during a relatively stagnant period of economic growth.

Lifespans likely were not the predominant concern when any of these machines were designed. Rather, what consumers could afford likely played a greater role.

 

[Omnistalgic]

Keep in mind that the pS360 were designed during a moderate economic boom period. Conversely, the PS4 and X1 were designed during a relatively stagnant period of economic growth.

Lifespans likely were not the predominant concern when any of these machines were designed. Rather, what consumers could afford likely played a greater role.

hmm...that's kinda interesting, would explain the majority of negative concerns over the possibility of a hardware refresh.

 

[specdot]

bumped this...

because I wanted to toot my own horn a little ;0) but more importantly, I'm sure people have said this throughout their time on GAF and most replies have been negative or filled with disbelief at the thought.

Now here we are, with rumors of PS4k and X1.5 coming as soon as this year possibly. I mean, wow. I just wanted to make a thread where it wasn't so filled with worry about the possible negative outcome of refreshing mid-gen.

I think this could be good anyway, at least I'm eager to see it through before I'm saying Sony is screwing me over for buying a PS4 in 2013.

I for one am excited for a mid gen refresh to be honest.

 

[Osukaa]

Am I in the minority when I say that I enjoy the longer console cycles? I still think that a lot of 360/PS3 games look absolutely amazing despite the aging hardware. I hope that the PS4 last at least 6 years. I'm seeing people say 2-4 years and I'm blown away. Consumerism is a muthafucker lol.

You are not alone. At the very least there's 2 of us now lol. I'm ok with the long cycles as long as the games are good. I think alot of people are way too caught up on oh we need better graphics, we need 60 fps blah blah...
Jeeze I sound like a Nintendo salesman.

 

[Killer Queen]

Phone-makers make money off their phones. Console-makers lose money off their consoles. A 4 year cycle means a heavy R&D and manufacturing round of costs sooner, resulting in less time to recuperate from launch losses.

That and with game development taking longer and costing more you're gunna get less games with shorter cycles and AA games were pretty much already killed off. I'm not sure why people think this will be a short generation, we're two years in and are hardly getting started

You are not alone. At the very least there's 2 of us now lol. I'm ok with the long cycles as long as the games are good. I think alot of people are way too caught up on oh we need better graphics, we need 60 fps blah blah...
Jeeze I sound like a Nintendo salesman.

Make it 3, I'd love 60fps souls but developers are going to keep pushing graphics over framerate because that's what defines a large leap over the previous installment to the general audience, how it looks not plays.