Support NeoGAF

[GlamFM]

Surely the PS4K is exactly a "faster horse"?!

Funny, but that´s not haw that quote is meant.

And you know that.

Probably.

 

[Rourkey]

I do not approve of this, you end up being like a PC gamer, always thinking the other guy beat you because he had a better rig

 

[wapplew]

Funny, but that´s not haw that quote is meant.

And you know that.

Probably.

Iterative hardware is faster horse. Same shit just faster.

 

[GlamFM]

Iterative hardware is faster horse. Same shit just faster.

It´s about people not knowing what they want until they get it.

 

[deathkiller]

iOS is not a good example of how to do it "Properly", as Apple only let developers support OS Revisions, not hardware devisions.

Not really, Apple doesn't mind if you don't mention a device in the app description and when you install it either way you get an "Device not supported" black screen at launch. I have worked on games that do that.

 

[jeff_rigby]

No it's everyday people talking about 4K right now & it will be even more people talking about it when PS4K comes out.

Or when the firmware update and advertising starts. PS4 does everything advertising starts but given the FCC mandate for the DSS starts in a little under two years and HEVC Antenna TV ramps in two years it's not immediate and I'll try to stop being early on predicting whats coming when which I've been terrible at.

 

[Bitch Pudding]

It´s about people not knowing what they want until they get it.

Exactly, hence that Steve Jobs reference, who was a master in developing things no one asked for, but everyone wants to have.

The thing is, sometimes you have to take risks. I appreciate that Sony as the market leader isn't resting on their laurels but is trying to become even more competitive. If this works out for them, it could become a classic example for strategic management in every decent MBA course.

 

[wapplew]

It´s about people not knowing what they want until they get it.

I know what it meant, but how does it not make PS4K a faster horse?
GC to Wii, a horse to a car, PS4 to PS4K, a horse to a faster horse.

That's what an evolutionary console is, stay as a horse. Keep console in same environment so that dev don't have to learn how to drive a car.

 

[Bitch Pudding]

I know what it meant, but how does it not make PS4K a faster horse?
GC to Wii, a horse to a car, PS4 to PS4K, a horse to a faster horse.

Don't read too much into it. The point is that people out there (except very few of course) didn't ask for a PS4k (EDIT, all they want is a PS5 (at some point in the future, but not after 3 years).

Not asking is not the same that not want.

Usually, people doesnt know the things they want/need till they see/try them.

^^ that's actually exactly my point...

 

[GlamFM]

I know what it meant, but how does it not make PS4K a faster horse?
GC to Wii, a horse to a car, PS4 to PS4K, a horse to a faster horse.

That's what an evolutionary console is, stay as a horse. Keep console in same environment so that dev don't have to learn how to drive a car.

Sure.

Bitch Pudding was not talking about the PS4K specifically, but about GAF (or the human race) in general though.

Who cares... enough about that quote I say!

 

[Negotiator]

I know what it meant, but how does it not make PS4K a faster horse?
GC to Wii, a horse to a car, PS4 to PS4K, a horse to a faster horse.

That's what an evolutionary console is, stay as a horse. Keep console in same environment so that dev don't have to learn how to drive a car.

I think the x86-64/GCN APU combo is here to stay indefinitely. It will just get faster and faster.

 

[Mabufu]

Don't read too much into it. The point is that people out there (except very few of course) didn't ask for a PS4k.

Not asking is not the same that not want.

Usually, people doesnt know the things they want/need till they see/try them.

 

[Negotiator]

Also, iterative consoles are a necessary step towards cloud gaming (having remote server blades that will stream content to consumers).

So yeah, I think the PS6-PS7-PS8 (a fully cloud-based console that will require a PS Now subscription) will have BC & FC thanks to the AMD APU combo.

We have to pay for upgrades now, but in the future it will be Sony (and MS/Nintendo) that will have to pay for those upgrades. The consumer will just have to pay for one subscription and that's it.

Remasters in the generation also make sense (even though many people hate them), because of BC/FC. Making remasters for the PS4 means "preservation" for these games.

 

[jeff_rigby]

4K isn't nearly as big as you believe it is. It will probably take another 5 years before it is wildly accepted as 1080p is now.

4K delivery is not all about 4K. It's about HEVC and a common standard for the UI and delivery (HTML5 <video>) with a common DRM which allows sharing media in and out of the home. The majority of HEVC Antenna TV content will be 1080P and lower resolution.

The FCC is going to sell more TV spectrum to Cell phone companies which doesn't leave enough for duplication of ATSC 1 and 3 at the same time. This time the transition will be faster likely without Government subsidy for converter tuners. STBs connected to network DLNA/Vidipath tuners is now speculated as necessary=> PS4, XB1, all the new ARM game consoles and UHD Blu-ray players with digital bridge. Expect really cheap UHD Blu-ray players in the next year that double as Vidipath clients on Cable TV as well as combo ATSC 1 and 3 DLNA/Vidipath tuners for Antenna TV.

 

[Cthulhu_Steev]

I do not approve of this, you end up being like a PC gamer, always thinking the other guy beat you because he had a better rig

Well no, that's just being a child.

 

[jeff_rigby]

Does anyone know whether the PS4K will have a 10bit color depth?

The Media TEE just has to have the memory and power to support it. Easy for a STB like the PS4 but not the TV. The better question that answers yours is how they support both 8 and 10 bit at the same time.

 

[HandsomeCharles]

Not really, Apple doesn't mind if you don't mention a device in the app description and when you install it either way you get an "Device not supported" black screen at launch. I have worked on games that do that.

Apple may not mind it, but as a consumer it's incredibly irritating and potentially misleading.

For example, I downloaded MiiTomo last week, only to find that it doesn't work on my iPhone 4. I was given no notification of this in the app, and had to be informed by other Gaf members that hidden in a FAQ somewhere it stated that iPhone 4 was not supported, yet I was still able to download and install.

What If I had paid money for that App, but was outside of the refund window by the time I got round to activating (Or realising that my device wasn't supported)? I'd have to go through an arduous refund process by contacting support and sending emails. All of which could have been avoided if the developer was allowed to say right from the offset that I wasn't able to install or download the game.

But anyway, even if you disagree with that, I feel the rest of my post still makes a valid point.

 

[GamerMax73]

Also, iterative consoles are a necessary step towards cloud gaming (having remote server blades that will stream content to consumers).

Why?

(a fully cloud-based console that will require a PS Now subscription) will have BC & FC thanks to the AMD APU combo.

Why would you need a fast local CPU/GPU or BC or FC if all the processing is being done in the mythical cloud?

And what about all the poor people with 1830's Internet connections?

We have to pay for upgrades now, but in the future it will be Sony (and MS/Nintendo) that will have to pay for those upgrades. The consumer will just have to pay for one subscription and that's it.

It's a dream but I've never seen how building a server farm to support 100m+ users playing the latest and greatest video games at UHD resolutions with acceptable latences could be even remotely possible without a major worldwide investment in seriously overhauling the entire physical Internet infrastructure.

Remasters in the generation also make sense (even though many people hate them), because of BC/FC. Making remasters for the PS4 means "preservation" for these games.

If all you want is preservation then Emulation is a better answer IMHO.

 

[jeff_rigby]

Yes, I am a developer. Primarily console development. Also, I supported my claims on the previous topic and you never acknowledged or came back to it. That info combined with first hand experience at the time fits with what happened, not this so called reasoning that the Wii not being HD was a problem.



PS3 wasn't forward compatible to PS4 and vice versa. The change in the business model now is that systems will be forward and backward compatible. Now that you have that, you've introduced fragmentation to the userbase and which systems they have. The affects aren't going to be immediate, but over time they do introduce fragmentation.

Here's another way to look at it. Under an iterative model where we get rid of generations, the following will happen. With only a PS4, developers target the full potential of the PS4. PS4.5 gets added, and now we have developers target the PS4 to its full potential and extra polish on the PS4.5. Now what happens when the PS5 comes out. Do you support PS4 still? Do you make PS4.5 the baseline instead and leave the PS4 behind? Let's say you do PS4 as your baseline. Then you're now failing to fully exploit the PS5 and it's just adding extra polish such as framerate, or more particles or higher res shadows. Because you have the PS4 in the mix still, it's holding back what you could do. Now add a PS5.5 into the mix, do you support the PS4 still at this point? Drop it? Now move on to PS5 as the baseline since the PS4.5 userbase was much smaller than the PS4? At what point does the PS5 really get pushed? In the old generation model, if we simply went from PS4 to PS5, the PS5 would have been the baseline and fully exploited moving forward. The removal of generations for an iterative model means the latest system doesn't get fully exploited as long as it's the latest. You see this now in Android phones, iPhones, and PC GPUs. That's what a fragmented userbase who is spread across varying level of hardware brings to the table.

Won't the move to the PS5 name be because we move to Ray Tracing which is more efficient for higher resolutions and requires near 10TF. A GPU supporting this would likely require emulation for PS4 and iteration games.

In the past a new Console generation has had a significant change in how games are created allowing new features. We in error associate it with a move from one CPU type to another like from Cell to X-86. This time with X-86, it will be the GPU that changes as the CPU instructions will stay the same.

Isn't the use of GPGPU and HSAIL to help with compatibility between iterations and their invention telling us that there is no easy forward compatibility? Or is it all due to DSP and FPGA being in future packages along with ARM blocks.

Maybe it would help to understand that x-86 instructions are an upper level common instruction set created with low level microcode that is unique to every CPU family. The same thing may be coming for GPUs because I believe you are correct, changes in GPU efficiency change how the GPU code must work which at this time means using a different compiler that can create a final product that can run on two PS4 iterations or maybe three. Edit; this is the reason for DirectX and OpenGL and the reason for Vulcan but Consoles are more to the metal or is that changing?

Eventually (on Consoles) this model breaks with a significant GPU change and Emulation is required. For X-86 CPUs they add new instructions which requires the programs to be recompiled to use. A PS4.5 is coming, that is guaranteed because a PS5 as I defined is years away. Is it coming in 2016, I doubt it, 2017 maybe, 2018 for sure by this date.

With a PS4.5 iteration either the OS has to emulate some older PS4 calls or patches need to be released for older games, the former is likely this time.

Example, AMD APUs have features that can massively accelerate some workloads but the software doesn't now support them. This is why AMD benefits from Consoles and maybe Apple iMAC as the manufacturer will optimize for the platform.

 

[mrklaw]

Here's another way to look at it. Under an iterative model where we get rid of generations, the following will happen. With only a PS4, developers target the full potential of the PS4. PS4.5 gets added, and now we have developers target the PS4 to its full potential and extra polish on the PS4.5. Now what happens when the PS5 comes out. Do you support PS4 still? Do you make PS4.5 the baseline instead and leave the PS4 behind? Let's say you do PS4 as your baseline. Then you're now failing to fully exploit the PS5 and it's just adding extra polish such as framerate, or more particles or higher res shadows. Because you have the PS4 in the mix still, it's holding back what you could do. Now add a PS5.5 into the mix, do you support the PS4 still at this point? Drop it? Now move on to PS5 as the baseline since the PS4.5 userbase was much smaller than the PS4? At what point does the PS5 really get pushed? In the old generation model, if we simply went from PS4 to PS5, the PS5 would have been the baseline and fully exploited moving forward. The removal of generations for an iterative model means the latest system doesn't get fully exploited as long as it's the latest. You see this now in Android phones, iPhones, and PC GPUs. That's what a fragmented userbase who is spread across varying level of hardware brings to the table.

I would fully expect Sony to provide guidance on this as part of the business model they share with publishers. Eg they would require full support across PS4 and PS4k, and when PS5 comes out you can choose to drop PS4 support and continue with just 4k and 5. i.e they'd work with publishers to plan the obsolescence based on likely performance increases over time, and the desired active lifespan of consoles.

standard generational switch around 5/6 years? Release consoles every 3 years, developers support the most recent two at any one time.

Extended 'we have a ten year lifecycle'? Same as above but allow support for the older console so you have three active at a time. Depending on the publisher and their goals, this is likely to be limited to evergreen franchises and big licensed properties - your lego/FIFA games where publishers already farm out ports to the 'obsolete' console for a few years after a new console launches.

I don't disagree. The reason everyone was happy with the move towards x86 was to get past the issues you described above. It was assumed moving forward the architecture wouldn't change like they had in the past. This has been widely assumed long before the notion of a mid generation was on the radar. The issue was never about the change or benefits in the current architecture. What comes in to question is this shift in the business model, to which we don't even know what the new business model is. You can gain all the benefits you describe by simply having traditional generations and releasing a PS5 5 to 6 years after the PS4 launched. What you described doesn't change by having traditional generations with this architecture. I'm not convinced on the other hand of removing generations and doing frequent and constant iteration releases either.

true. I suppose the simple move to x86 gave a good baseline moving forward, regardless of the model used (incremental or standard generational switches).

But if you did have a straight PS5, you'd still have a ton of cross gen titles during that period, and potentially some remasters. So in that situation how would a PS5 be meaningfully different from a PS4.5, other than waiting longer and having a bigger jump in performance? Why not have an interim product for those that may want it?

 

[gconsole]

Yes, I am a developer. Primarily console development. Also, I supported my claims on the previous topic and you never acknowledged or came back to it. That info combined with first hand experience at the time fits with what happened, not this so called reasoning that the Wii not being HD was a problem.



PS3 wasn't forward compatible to PS4 and vice versa. The change in the business model now is that systems will be forward and backward compatible. Now that you have that, you've introduced fragmentation to the userbase and which systems they have. The affects aren't going to be immediate, but over time they do introduce fragmentation.

Here's another way to look at it. Under an iterative model where we get rid of generations, the following will happen. With only a PS4, developers target the full potential of the PS4. PS4.5 gets added, and now we have developers target the PS4 to its full potential and extra polish on the PS4.5. Now what happens when the PS5 comes out. Do you support PS4 still? Do you make PS4.5 the baseline instead and leave the PS4 behind? Let's say you do PS4 as your baseline. Then you're now failing to fully exploit the PS5 and it's just adding extra polish such as framerate, or more particles or higher res shadows. Because you have the PS4 in the mix still, it's holding back what you could do. Now add a PS5.5 into the mix, do you support the PS4 still at this point? Drop it? Now move on to PS5 as the baseline since the PS4.5 userbase was much smaller than the PS4? At what point does the PS5 really get pushed? In the old generation model, if we simply went from PS4 to PS5, the PS5 would have been the baseline and fully exploited moving forward. The removal of generations for an iterative model means the latest system doesn't get fully exploited as long as it's the latest. You see this now in Android phones, iPhones, and PC GPUs. That's what a fragmented userbase who is spread across varying level of hardware brings to the table.

Sure, I think they just follow Apple iphone strategy. All game are forward compatible. with the maximum playability ( acceptable framerate ) span across 2-3 iterations. So to answer your question, game on PS5 might not support PS4 but maybe for PS4.5. Same for 5.5 and forward. The thing is each iteration takes 3 years to release , so it can't be supported any longer than that. Pretty much 6 years life cycle, but with the new release model.

That will fragmented the userbase for sure. But the market and environment has now changed. With console gamer getting shrink every year, they need to do something to make it more flexible. 6 years for the same machine doesn't work anymore. You should know that the best.

 

[wapplew]

But if you did have a straight PS5, you'd still have a ton of cross gen titles during that period, and potentially some remasters. So in that situation how would a PS5 be meaningfully different from a PS4.5, other than waiting longer and having a bigger jump in performance? Why not have an interim product for those that may want it?

Some minor different, mainly adoption rate.
When you have a PS4.5, it will make the jump less significant, at the same time because of forward compatible, PS5 will not have any exclusive to push adoption rate.
A slow adoption hardware get will less support, hence the cross gen period will be a lot longer.

With console gamer getting shrink every year, they need to do something to make it more flexible. 6 years for the same machine doesn't work anymore. You should know that the best.

What make you think console market shrinking because of 6 years generation? Why do you think 3 years iteration could be the remedy?

 

[Melchiah]

The real question is, will PT work on the PS4K after a data transfer?

 

[Haano]

As long as I can trade in my PS4 for a decent price I don't mind.

 

[GamerMax73]

Here's another way to look at it. Under an iterative model where we get rid of generations, the following will happen. With only a PS4, developers target the full potential of the PS4. PS4.5 gets added, and now we have developers target the PS4 to its full potential and extra polish on the PS4.5. Now what happens when the PS5 comes out. Do you support PS4 still? Do you make PS4.5 the baseline instead and leave the PS4 behind? Let's say you do PS4 as your baseline. Then you're now failing to fully exploit the PS5 and it's just adding extra polish such as framerate, or more particles or higher res shadows. Because you have the PS4 in the mix still, it's holding back what you could do. Now add a PS5.5 into the mix, do you support the PS4 still at this point? Drop it? Now move on to PS5 as the baseline since the PS4.5 userbase was much smaller than the PS4? At what point does the PS5 really get pushed? In the old generation model, if we simply went from PS4 to PS5, the PS5 would have been the baseline and fully exploited moving forward. The removal of generations for an iterative model means the latest system doesn't get fully exploited as long as it's the latest. You see this now in Android phones, iPhones, and PC GPUs. That's what a fragmented userbase who is spread across varying level of hardware brings to the table.

I've used this example before, and a lot depends on Sony's vision, but wouldn't this be more practical

2013-2021 - PS4 Lead Platform
2016-2021 - PS4.5 Second Platform

2021-2025 - PS4.5 Lead Platform (PS4 discontinued)
2021-2025 - PS5 Second Platform

2025-2029 - PS5 Lead Platform (PS4.5 discontinued)
2025-2029 - PS5.5 Second Platform

And so on?

Easy to work out what to target, only 2 models to support, quicker turn around of technology - keeping up with pace of change, consoles supported for the traditional 8-year cycle, As before they are pushed in the second half of their life cycle.

 

[wapplew]

I've used this example before, and a lot depends on Sony's vision, but wouldn't this be more practical

2013-2021 - PS4 Lead Platform
2016-2021 - PS4.5 Second Platform

2021-2025 - PS4.5 Lead Platform (PS4 discontinued)
2021-2025 - PS5 Second Platform

2025-2029 - PS5 Lead Platform (PS4.5 discontinued)
2025-2029 - PS5.5 Second Platform

And so on?

Easy to work out what to target, only 2 models to support, quicker turn around of technology - keeping up with pace of change, consoles supported for the traditional 8-year cycle, As before they are pushed in the second half of their life cycle.

I would prefer

2013-2021 - PS4 Lead Platform
2016-2021 - PS4.5 Second Platform

2021-2025 - PS5 Lead Platform (fuck PS4/4.5)
2021-2025 - PS5.5 Second Platform

2025-2029 - PS6 Lead Platform (fuck PS5/5.5)
2025-2029 - PS6.5 Second Platform

One additional hardware every gen and no forward compatible next gen.

 

[TheLegendOfMart]

I would prefer

2013-2021 - PS4 Lead Platform
2016-2021 - PS4.5 Second Platform

2021-2025 - PS5 Lead Platform (fuck PS4/4.5)
2021-2025 - PS5.5 Second Platform

2025-2029 - PS6 Lead Platform (fuck PS5/5.5)
2025-2029 - PS6.5 Second Platform

One additional hardware every gen and no forward compatible next gen.

If they are releasing a mid-gen upgrade then they need to support the previous console when the next gen releases assuming it is using a similar x86 APU.

You can't change the new hardware to 3 year cycle and expect them to pay another £400 for the next numbered release.

 

[GamerMax73]

I would prefer

2013-2021 - PS4 Lead Platform
2016-2021 - PS4.5 Second Platform

2021-2025 - PS5 Lead Platform (fuck PS4/4.5)
2021-2025 - PS5.5 Second Platform

2025-2029 - PS6 Lead Platform (fuck PS5/5.5)
2025-2029 - PS6.5 Second Platform

One additional hardware every gen and no forward compatible next gen.

That's great, but an awful big fuck-off to anyone stupid enough to purchase a .5 system.

Buy .0 and you'll get 6-8 years and always be the lead platform. Buy .5 and you'll get 3-4 years and never be the lead platform. What's the point in the .5 model? Release some exclusives for it and piss off the .0 owners? It just doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[wapplew]

That's great, but an awful big fuck-off to anyone stupid enough to purchase a .5 system.

Buy .0 and you'll get 6-8 years and always be the lead platform. Buy .5 and you'll get 3-4 years and never be the lead platform. What's the point in the .5 model? Release some exclusives for it and piss off the .0 owners? It just doesn't make any sense to me.

Well, i assume those who buy .5 are expecting just that.
They want more bell and whistle and they get exactly what they want and nothing more.
Since all hardware remain same architecture, I assume cross gen port will be a lot easier. So you still get a lot of love from third party and I can get my first party exclusive. Win win.

 

[c0de]

Won't the move to the PS5 name be because we move to Ray Tracing which is more efficient for higher resolutions and requires near 10TF. A GPU supporting this would likely require emulation for PS4 and iteration games.

In the past a new Console generation has had a significant change in how games are created allowing new features. We in error associate it with a move from one CPU type to another like from Cell to X-86. This time with X-86, it will be the GPU that changes as the CPU instructions will stay the same.

Isn't the use of GPGPU and HSAIL to help with compatibility between iterations and their invention telling us that there is no easy forward compatibility? Or is it all due to DSP and FPGA being in future packages along with ARM blocks.

Ray-tracing? I doubt we will see that in the near future. It was said to come since many years and never did, not to mention that engines aren't build for that currently.
And FPGAs in ARM? Good luck with hoping for signicant performance that won't cost much but can do much.

Left out the rest because of causality chain issues.

 

[jeff_rigby]

Ray-tracing? I doubt we will see that in the near future. It was said to come since many years and never did, not to mention that engines aren't build for that currently.
And FPGAs in ARM? Good luck with hoping for signicant performance that won't cost much but can do much.

Left out the rest because of causality chain issues.

That was the point of the edits. 10TF and Ray tracing for a PS5 is post 2020 so a PS4.5 is a lock but maybe not this year.

 

[GamerMax73]

Ray-tracing? I doubt we will see that in the near future. It was said to come since many years and never did, not to mention that engines aren't build for that currently.

I read somewhere, I forget where and how credible the source was - my google-fu fails me once again, anyway I read somewhere - that modern GPU's have long passed the point were real time ray-tracing was technically possible but the speed and fidelity, the shear number, of polygons being thrown around the screen meant there was little to gain anymore from ray-tracing.

That said, doesn't Imagination Technologies latest PowerVR chips include a built in real-time hardware ray-tracing? Then again didn't Apple recently back out of buying Imagination?

 

[deathkiller]

Apple may not mind it, but as a consumer it's incredibly irritating and potentially misleading.

For example, I downloaded MiiTomo last week, only to find that it doesn't work on my iPhone 4. I was given no notification of this in the app, and had to be informed by other Gaf members that hidden in a FAQ somewhere it stated that iPhone 4 was not supported, yet I was still able to download and install.

What If I had paid money for that App, but was outside of the refund window by the time I got round to activating (Or realising that my device wasn't supported)? I'd have to go through an arduous refund process by contacting support and sending emails. All of which could have been avoided if the developer was allowed to say right from the offset that I wasn't able to install or download the game.

But anyway, even if you disagree with that, I feel the rest of my post still makes a valid point.

That's on Nintendo, on other games the supported devices is in the first line of the description, example (Dungeon Hunter 5):
https://itunes.apple.com/en/app/dungeon-hunter-5/id885823239?mt=8&ign-mpt=uo=4

 

[spwolf]

I would prefer

2013-2021 - PS4 Lead Platform
2016-2021 - PS4.5 Second Platform

2021-2025 - PS5 Lead Platform (fuck PS4/4.5)
2021-2025 - PS5.5 Second Platform

2025-2029 - PS6 Lead Platform (fuck PS5/5.5)
2025-2029 - PS6.5 Second Platform

One additional hardware every gen and no forward compatible next gen.

There is simply no reason for that.

I would suspect many ps5 games will support ps4 if not all, for first 2-3 years at least

 

[GlamFM]

There is simply no reason for that.

I would suspect many ps5 games will support ps4 if not all, for first 2-3 years at least

Not that different from how it is right now.

 

[photogaz]

Would it be so bad if the PS4K was just a PS4 that offered 60fps for those who want it.

 

[Omaer]

So in that situation how would a PS5 be meaningfully different from a PS4.5, other than waiting longer and having a bigger jump in performance? Why not have an interim product for those that may want it?

The problem as far as I understand it to be is that it will make it much more difficult for developers to optimize for console hardware. Also you have to understand the gamer userbase not everyone is going to be willing to buy a console every 3 years or so like they do with their cellphones & what not. Consoles are a luxury item. By doing what they are doing I don't see how this practice can be supported for consoles in the long run. I mean cellphones/smartphones, desktops/tablets like it or not are a lot more versatile than consoles by design. People use these devices for multiple uses. While consoles can perform other tasks. Those are always a second if not third on a user's priority. It's main function is to play games. If it becomes more costly than it is already to play games for the user base. They may continue to steadily & slowly continue to migrate towards phones & desktops. Since most casual gamers that still play on consoles will further migrate to phones & tablets. While more dedicated players hardcore or not will move onto the PC platform. This trend has already begun since the last consoles generation (PS3 & 360). With this model that Sony is implementing may be successful the first time like the wii gimmick. But for something that will last the next generations to come. I highly doubt it & I don't see this being profitable in the long term; for Sony or the console industry as a whole.

 

[geordiemp]

Would it be so bad if the PS4K was just a PS4 that offered 60fps for those who want it.

Thats what I want as well.

Also all this talk about ease of development - I cant for the life of me see this being a difficulty for the likes of Sony first party, EA and Frostbite, Activision and COD, Ubisoft, Unreal engine 4 games or any of the big players who generally makes games for systems from Titans to toasters.

So in general a Ps4K wont make any difference to most of the big games, publishers, devs and the like imo.

I just cannot imagine big industry middleware engines having an issue with another model inbetween high end Pc's and a Ps4.

 

[GamerMax73]

The problem as far as I understand it to be is that it will make it much more difficult for developers to optimize for console hardware.

That's the question though, isn't it? I've no doubt it would mean more work for developers, but how much? More work than supporting a single PS4? yes, of course. More work than supporting two entirely different platforms/architectures as in PS4 and XB1? More work than supporting a myriad of CPUs, RAM, GPU's on PC? Afterall we are still talking about one common architecture and one set of API's (back to the flawed iOS/Android analogies)

Also you have to understand the gamer userbase not everyone is going to be willing to buy a console every 3 years or so like they do with their cellphones & what not.

At least in what's known from the rumour so far no one is remotely suggesting that. The current rumour suggests PS4 will be supported on going alongside a PS4K. Why would anyone be forced into upgrading every 3 years or so?

Since most casual gamers that still play on consoles will further migrate to phones & tablets. While more dedicated players hardcore or not will move onto the PC platform. This trend has already begun since the last consoles generation (PS3 & 360).

If Japan is anything to go by these trends are likely to continue anyway. For me, and I suspect a lot of console gamers, PC doesn't quite offer the TV experience we are looking for (yes I'm fully capable of building a gaming rig, connecting it to a TV, auto-booting Steam Big Picture Mode, and using a wireless 360 controller - thanks). Steamboxes had my interest but valve fluffed it as far as I'm concerned.

Mobile and micro console still don't support the games I want to play. PC doesn't have the exclusives I'm interested in. If Naughty Dog release The Last of Us 2 to PC - then we can talk.

With this model that Sony is implementing may be successful the first time like the wii gimmick. But for something that will last the next generations to come. I highly doubt it & I don't see this being profitable in the long term; for Sony or the console industry as a whole.

Is releasing a slight hardware upgrade more often really that big a change in business model? It's about having a platform to sell games on at the end of the day. If you can make that platform more competitive with hardware iterations - why not? At the end of the day what you really want to do is maintain the one platform indefinitely rather than push the hard reset button every 5-8 years.

It's not a wii motion controller gimmick at all. Unless you're talking about VR - then I concur entirely

 

[vpance]

There is simply no reason for that.

I would suspect many ps5 games will support ps4 if not all, for first 2-3 years at least

Some devs will choose to make PS5 exclusives also, pretty sure of that.

 

[potatohead]

I would prefer

2013-2021 - PS4 Lead Platform
2016-2021 - PS4.5 Second Platform

2021-2025 - PS5 Lead Platform (fuck PS4/4.5)
2021-2025 - PS5.5 Second Platform

2025-2029 - PS6 Lead Platform (fuck PS5/5.5)
2025-2029 - PS6.5 Second Platform

One additional hardware every gen and no forward compatible next gen.

I like this better. If we start a completely new numbered generation it should be the baseline.

Forward-compatible should only apply to PS4.5 or PS5.5. Not to fully new PS5 or something.

Plus we could have full backwards-compatibility without giving up a "new generation" that is genuinely different from the last.

 

[spons]

I would have thought so, as this is something audio/video enthusiasts would be looking for from a device. I am not an expert, but is 10bit colour depth not part of the UHD spec. Guess all will become clear this year.

Indeed, at least the HEVC decoder has to support 10-bit video streams, but there's no reason to do so for games and actual video output, although I would deem that situation a design mistake. They ought to support this, fully.

 

[farisr]

I would prefer

2013-2021 - PS4 Lead Platform
2016-2021 - PS4.5 Second Platform

2021-2025 - PS5 Lead Platform (normal cross-gen port for last gen systems, like it is right now, rather than forward compatibility)
2021-2025 - PS5.5 Second Platform

2025-2029 - PS6 Lead Platform (normal cross-gen port for last gen systems, like it is right now, rather than forward compatibility)
2025-2029 - PS6.5 Second Platform

This is my modified version of your model, and honestly how I think a .5 release could work.

The way I see it, .5 isn't an essential release. It's for people who want a boost in fidelity for some games, and in the ps4.5's case, better interaction/functionality with a 4ktv. It could be something different with ps5.5. It could be something different with ps6.5. Most devs will not be focusing on optimizing the .5 consoles to the fullest, so the PS5 and PS6 release will still be a significant jump in fidelity in general as games across the board will be improved rather than a select few.

 

[Elandyll]

That's great, but an awful big fuck-off to anyone stupid enough to purchase a .5 system.

Buy .0 and you'll get 6-8 years and always be the lead platform. Buy .5 and you'll get 3-4 years and never be the lead platform. What's the point in the .5 model? Release some exclusives for it and piss off the .0 owners? It just doesn't make any sense to me.

.5 systems would be aimed toward people with more disposable income/ who would rather have the better system at any point in time, even at the cost of upgrading every 3 years.

Basically if you want 6+ years of new games for your system, upgrade at .0, if you want top of the line within that console ecosystem but can't afford every 3 years, upgrade at .5, and those who have the income will upgrade every 3 years.

I don't think that Sony will do the following for obvious reasons:
- forward compatibility
- dropping support for .0 while still releasing .5 games for that ecosystem.

Because in both cases it means that you screw a -large- part of your customers (the new gen buyers rightfully expecting games optimized for their brand new gen in #1, and the vast bulk of buyers of the lower cost/ initial launch console on #2).

That's the advantage of having "gens" in consoles. You get to have a break (the .0) to say "now these games are meant for the new sheriff in town".

 

[CosmicQueso]

It's one iterative console. Not iterative consoles in every gen forever. It's one iterative console to bridge the gap between gens due to 4K becoming more mainstream and to support the purchasing of those sets and the consumption of 4K content. All of which carries a higher price, lower likelihood of steaming and, for media companies, hopefully slow or reverse cord cutting. There's zero evidence or rationale at all for iterative consoles forever.

I would fully expect Sony to provide guidance on this as part of the business model they share with publishers.

Which is already happening.

These doomsday scenarios have no basis at all in reality or even in rumor from the development community that actually knows what is going on.

 

[Stike]

It's one iterative console. Not iterative consoles in every gen forever. It's one iterative console to bridge the gap between gens due to 4K becoming more mainstream and to support the purchasing of those sets and the consumption of 4K content. All of which carries a higher price, lower likelihood of steaming and, for media companies, hopefully slow or reverse cord cutting. There's zero evidence or rationale at all for iterative consoles forever.


These doomsday scenarios have no basis at all in reality or even in rumor from the development community that actually knows what is going on.

Thanks for chiming in on this. Sounds like there is a gap to fill due to 4K only, not giving up the regular console cycle (due to X86, backwards compatibility is certainly happening for the future) and all the panic was for naught.

Although - will PS4K make PSVR games run better? I guess it will. That alone is a point to wait for it instead of getting PSVR for my PS4 now.

 

[GamerMax73]

.5 systems would be aimed toward people with more disposable income/ who would rather have the better system at any point in time, even at the cost of upgrading every 3 years.

It's one iterative console. Not iterative consoles in every gen forever. It's one iterative console to bridge the gap between gens due to 4K becoming more mainstream and to support the purchasing of those sets and the consumption of 4K content. All of which carries a higher price, lower likelihood of steaming and, for media companies, hopefully slow or reverse cord cutting. There's zero evidence or rationale at all for iterative consoles forever.

All I can say is, I can see...

• The cries from PS4.5/4K owners when the PS5 is released so soon and they are forced to upgrade again
• Sony not releasing a PS5 that isn't based on the exact same architecture and API's (albeit more powerful and updated)
• Sony releasing more consoles more quickly if the PS4.5/4K is a success

If they are going to stick with the same APU/Memory architecture and the same API's (which is what we all suspect) then logically it makes little sense holding off hardware upgrades to an arbitrary date to maintain legacy cycles, or forcing incompatibilities between models.

If PS4.5/4K is an iteration of PS4 and it is even mildly successful it will set the tone for PS5 and the future of the Playstation platform. After all why not stick with Cell or PowerPC or ARM + separate nVidia GPU or some other mystical hardware combination if that's not the case?

Like the light bar on the PS4 controller, I believe there's more to the choice of AMD x86 APU's than "it's the same x86 instruction set that PC's use". They choose it for a reason, as part of a long term strategy. If PS4.5/4K is real then it might be an indication as to what that strategy is.

That's the advantage of having "gens" in consoles. You get to have a break (the .0) to say "now these games are meant for the new sheriff in town".

As a business model that makes no sense for the platform holder. Just because technology/the market forced console makers hands in the past to conforming to this model doesn't make it right. The last thing any platform holder wants is to reset their customer base - full stop. Just ask Microsoft who released a fantastic console in the XBox One, have achieved record breaking sales in the XBox One, and yet still saw a large proportion of their 360 customer base desert them for PS4. If only there was a way of avoiding that from happen again and locking customers into your platform...

 

[CosmicQueso]

Sony releasing more consoles more quickly if the PS4.5/4K is a success.

Fair enough. If this thing is real and does launch and they can't keep them on the shelves and secondary market prices go through the roof? Well, then you're right. We would be getting iterative consoles forever, because that's what the market would want.

EDIT: In a way, are the people lamenting iterative consoles already assuming that the 4.5 will be a huge success? Wouldn't it have to be if iterative consoles are going to take hold? And if the 4.5 is a huge success, doesn't that mean that a lot of people will find value in buying the new box, meaning that we should all be looking forward to it?

 

[wapplew]

2013-2021 - PS4 Lead Platform
2016-2021 - PS4.5 Second Platform

2021-2025 - PS5 Lead Platform (normal cross-gen port for last gen systems, like it is right now, rather than forward compatibility)
2021-2025 - PS5.5 Second Platform

2025-2029 - PS6 Lead Platform (normal cross-gen port for last gen systems, like it is right now, rather than forward compatibility)
2025-2029 - PS6.5 Second Platform

This is my modified version of your model, and honestly how I think a .5 release could work.

The way I see it, .5 isn't an essential release. It's for people who want a boost in fidelity for some games, and in the ps4.5's case, better interaction/functionality with a 4ktv. It could be something different with ps5.5. It could be something different with ps6.5. Most devs will not be focusing on optimizing the .5 consoles to the fullest, so the PS5 and PS6 release will still be a significant jump in fidelity in general as games across the board will be improved rather than a select few.

Well, fuck old gen is a little much, but yeah, that's my take on iterative console.
Do not force forward compatible on new gen, if dev want to aim bigger install base, no one going to stop them from port.

 

[Bgamer90]

It's one iterative console. Not iterative consoles in every gen forever. It's one iterative console to bridge the gap between gens due to 4K becoming more mainstream and to support the purchasing of those sets and the consumption of 4K content. All of which carries a higher price, lower likelihood of steaming and, for media companies, hopefully slow or reverse cord cutting. There's zero evidence or rationale at all for iterative consoles forever.

I think this will depend on how well people will respond to this. I could see this move permanently replacing the "slimmer model with same specs 4-5 years after launch of original"-plan that we've seen since the SNES.

Edit: Just saw your reply.