Support NeoGAF

[Raylan]

I just don't understand the outrage.

What? Some people can play the same games that I have with better graphics? I feel "second class" now.

It makes no sense to me either. It's nice to have options. VERY nice, actually.
I can pay more and get better graphics/performance? Great! All PS4 (PS4 and PS4K) owners can still play all games? Great!

Nobody is forcing you to buy anything. You have options. Vote with your wallet.

 

[wapplew]

this. It also may 'lock' people into Sony's ecosystem, for ps5 or whatever comes next. Just like many people are tied to iOS or android because of their purchases, as long as systems are compatible and offer better visuals if you upgrade.
Instead of the 'reset' that has happened each new generation, that has seen different consoles from different platform holders lead in sales.

How do you "lock" someone into a ecosystem with Neo?
If you mean all your digital purchase carry over to the next system, a backward compatible PS5 will do the job with or without Neo.
So, what's the purpose of Neo here? Keeping customer away from NX or Xbox 1.5 in case they want to jump ship for better hardware?

 

[Audioboxer]

How do you "lock" someone into a ecosystem with Neo?
If you mean all your digital purchase carry over to the next system, a backward compatible PS5 will do the job with or without Neo.
So, what's the purpose of Neo here? Keeping customer away from NX or Xbox 1.5 in case they want to jump ship for better hardware?

Honestly? IMO keeping the possibility of scaleable VR experiences coming to PS4 until PS5 hits.

Just watch the VR world explode with new experiences over the next few years, each getting ever more complex. That works hand in hand with the PC market which can just pump out better components every 6 months to keep up. The PS4 currently is already a pretty big bottleneck for VR. It's a new piece of tech coming mid-cycle on a piece of hardware that usually remains static until the next big iteration.

 

[family_guy]

If you're willing to drop $2000 on a TV that doesn't need to be replaced though, you're relatively far removed from most people. If you're willing and capable of spending big money on incremental tech advances then that is all fine and good, but I don't think that will be the case for many consumers.

There's a market for people like me though which Sony is catering to. It doesn't have to be a large market. I see plenty of Honda Civics and Toyota Camrys on the street and rarely see models from Lexus, Infiniti, or Audi, but those luxury brands are still around and doing fine. People fine with having less will do fine with the economy model, PS4 in this case. They won't care. It still plays the same games just like Hondas will get you from point A to B. The experience just won't be as nice. Also I see the PS4k being Sony's only 4k Bluray player on the market. They will market this to nongamers to get them into the ecosystem so they can also get them on board with other services like PS Vue.

 

[wapplew]

Honestly? IMO keeping the possibility of scaleable VR experiences coming to PS4 until PS5 hits.

Just watch the VR world explode with new experiences over the next few years, each getting ever more complex. That works hand in hand with the PC market which can just pump out better components every 6 months to keep up.

Do you mean VR experiences won't come to PS4 unless Sony make a Neo?
They can't make exclusive content for Neo remember? Everything that work on Neo have to work on PS4, so what different does that make? PS4 will remain the bottleneck.

 

[Audioboxer]

Do you mean VR experiences won't come to PS4 unless Sony make a Neo?
They can't make exclusive content for Neo remember? Everything that work on Neo have to work on PS4, so what different does that make?

Maybe not if devs genuinely have a scenario where they simply cannot get something to run decently.

As for the second point, the rumoured mandate sounds probable, but lets be honest when it comes to VR I don't think Sony will have any issues in ~1 year or so allowing exclusive VR content. Why? They'll rely on gamer expectations to accept a specific VR experience may well just be flat out un-doable on an original PS4.

The same can't really be said for a standard game. The current console should be powerful enough to get decent working titles out till the next generation. VR is a different beast, 25~30FPS is just not acceptable in VR. Screaming on a messageboard that you're unhappy an exclusive VR experience cannot be done doesn't change the reality that you just cannot play a VR game at an iffy framerate - Whereas you can play DS3 right now on Xbox One with framerate dips to low 20's and still enjoy it. One is not like the other, VR just cannot be done with such technical hiccups.

People don't need to accept that, and can get angry about it, but it's reality. VR tech is new and requires it's own set of expectations to work well. It is heavily GPU reliant.

 

[wapplew]

Maybe not if devs genuinely have a scenario where they simply cannot get something to run decently.

As for the second point, the rumoured mandate sounds probable, but lets be honest when it comes to VR I don't think Sony will have any issues in ~1 year or so allowing exclusive VR content. Why? They'll rely on gamer expectations to accept a specific VR experience may well just be flat out un-doable on an original PS4.

The same can't really be said for a standard game. The current console should be powerful enough to get decent working titles out till the next generation. VR is a different beast, 25~30FPS is just not acceptable in VR. Screaming on a messageboard that you're unhappy an exclusive VR experience cannot be done doesn't change the reality that you just cannot play a VR game at an iffy framerate - Whereas you can play DS3 right now on Xbox One with framerate dips to low 20's and still enjoy it. One is not like the other, VR just cannot be done with such technical hiccups.

So they fuck over OGPS4 owner with PSVR? How do you think that will effect PSVR future?
Do you think this move will sell PSVR or kill it?

 

[Dunkers92]

Great post OP, I work in GAME in the UK and you hit the nail on the head

Since we are talking about retail:

How are you and the sector seeing the incoming flood of new bundles?
We'll have PS4 bundles, PSVR bundles, and apparently PSNeo bundles. 400$/500$ priced peripheral needing another 250$ / 399-499$ plattform to run. Isn't that going to be just too much for consumers and retail to handle?

Retail will handle it fine. In Europe at least, Sony fucking love their 'fixed' bundles. Over Christmas last year we had multiple variations of PS4 bundles (at least 7) that were all under different skus.

Maybe a bad comparison, but retail deals with tonnes of different skus already, not just for consoles, but for games (standard, limited, gold, collectors), and even things like headsets, so we are used to it

As for consumers, the explaining of different variations of products is what people like me are there for. Going back to the headset comparison, we have to explain to some people that they will need a headset adapter for their controller if they still have the old style, and what your money gets you (e.g. if you pay more for a headset, you are likely getting a better experience). So it isn't something new. And as people have alluded to already, it is much easier explaining an iterative upgrade now because of the phone market

 

[Audioboxer]

So they fuck over OGPS4 owner with PSVR? How do you think that will effect PSVR future?

The original PS4 owner is still getting VR content. You're buying a PSVR headset right now knowing it is vastly inferior to a PC headset.

Quite honestly you should expect a VR experience in line with what a console can and cannot deliver the second you decide to go for PSVR. The alternative already is all your friends on PC headsets will be getting experiences most likely day 1 the PS4 can't do. If you can accept this and allow PC owners to enjoy better experiences than you, you should be able to accept PS4 Neo and then PS5 owners will experience VR content you can't, unless you upgrade as well.

The main thing for Sony is the headset is scaleable between iterations of consoles, so they're not asking you to buy a new headset.

Reality cannot be bent simply to appease your expectations of VR. It simply requires a lot of power, and certain things a PC can do are going to be impossible on a console, or improbable until a console gets better. Your scenario requires Sony to be happy seeing PSVR fall further behind and maybe even risk losing it's market waiting on the PS5 to come about. As a business heavily invested in VR, this isn't going to be allowed to happen. Nor should it FOR those PSVR headset buyers. Then it really is DOA.

VR is going to be an expensive hobby for many years to come for ANYONE investing in it. Even on PC. It's new tech and will move fairly rapidly. It's best just to avoid it for the time being if you don't want to pony up cash to stay relevant.

 

[SensibleSucker]

"For the players....with more money than you".

The OP responded to an early reply saying that, if you are objecting to the incremental upgrading, that's because this upgrade is not targeted at you. You are not the target demographic for it. Fair enough. But that implicitly accepts that base-level PS4 owners are no-longer the target demographic for Sony producing the best that they can produce. There is no way around that. It'll work. But it won't be the best thing we made.

Offering a premium version of any product by definition states that those not buying it are getting a lesser product.

Some might be fine with that. In fact, some might like a cheaper entry point to the PS4 experience. The thing is, the PS4 would have dropped in price anyway, whereas this allows Sony to once again go back to selling a product to gamers at the top price, giving the illusion that the "lower" entry point is a bargain.

The phone analogy only works when people know their entry point. If someone goes into a shop today and buys a Galaxy s6. They already know they are not getting the top of the range phone, but because it;s cheaper than the s.7, they are happy with that.

PS4 (and XB1) customers bought their systems knowing that their boxes represented to greatest technological capacity presented by each company this generation. That their software on it would max out their hardware but never go beyond it. They'd never make a game that their box could not run AT IT'S BEST on their company's console.

There will be 40m Sony customers who Sony are now developing software for, whose products simply won't run at the level Sony produce them.

It's perfectly understandable why plenty of people are objecting to this.

That said. If either company went all in with the phone analogy and offered me a 3 year contract for £20 a month, including LIVE/Plus...and I got the console for FREE, with a FREE upgrade in 3 years time, I'd take it.

 

[border]

There's a market for people like me though which Sony is catering to. It doesn't have to be a large market. I see plenty of Honda Civics and Toyota Camrys on the street and rarely see models from Lexus, Infiniti, or Audi, but those luxury brands are still around and doing fine. People fine with having less will do fine with the economy model, PS4 in this case. They won't care. It still plays the same games just like Hondas will get you from point A to B. The experience just won't be as nice. Also I see the PS4k being Sony's only 4k Bluray player on the market. They will market this to nongamers to get them into the ecosystem so they can also get them on board with other services like PS Vue.

Keep in mind that what I'm talking about is mostly just a distrust and "wait and see" attitude that will slow down adoption rates on newer hardware.

When Toyota announces a new $15K Corolla, nobody waits around to see if there might be a new $15K Lexus introduced 2 years later. Lexus doesn't make cars that cheap and they probably never will. The pricepoints between the luxury brand and the economy brand are so insanely far apart that doesn't even factor into a consumer's decision. But if we're talking about the difference between a $400 console now and a $400 revision a little later, I think that's a difference that will encourage people to hold out.....especially if they already feel burned by the swift introduction of the PS4K.

 

[Audioboxer]

"For the players....with more money than you".

The OP responded to an early reply saying that, if you are objecting to the incremental upgrading, that's because this upgrade is not targeted at you. You are not the target demographic for it. Fair enough. But that implicitly accepts that base-level PS4 owners are no-longer the target demographic for Sony producing the best that they can produce. There is no way around that. It'll work. But it won't be the best thing we made.

Offering a premium version of any product by definition states that those not buying it are getting a lesser product.

Some might be fine with that. In fact, some might like a cheaper entry point to the PS4 experience. The thing is, the PS4 would have dropped in price anyway, whereas this allows Sony to once again go back to selling a product to gamers at the top price, giving the illusion that the "lower" entry point is a bargain.

The phone analogy only works when people know their entry point. If someone goes into a shop today and buys a Galaxy s6. They already know they are not getting the top of the range phone, but because it;s cheaper than the s.7, they are happy with that.

PS4 (and XB1) customers bought their systems knowing that their boxes represented to greatest technological capacity presented by each company this generation. That their software on it would max out their hardware but never go beyond it. They'd never make a game that their box could not run AT IT'S BEST on their company's console.

There will be 40m Sony customers who Sony are now developing software for, whose products simply won't run at the level Sony produce them.

It's perfectly understandable why plenty of people are objecting to this.

That said. If either company went all in with the phone analogy and offered me a 3 year contract for £20 a month, including LIVE/Plus...and I got the console for FREE, with a FREE upgrade in 3 years time, I'd take it.

Games will still run AT THE BEST they can on the hardware you own till the end of time. This is the warped view I cannot understand. What you'll play on the original PS4 till the PS5 comes out is the same today, as it would be in a year even if the PS4 Neo didn't come out.

1080/30 is what the PS4 is largely capable of and this will be the case as long as you use an original PS4. Nothing is changing that. Unless of course you're part of the camp that now believes in 640p 25FPS titles making a comeback... then, well, bookmark your own posts and check them out in a year please.

 

[biglittleps]

Completely agree with OP. Everyone here and other message boards think they are mass market and I'm sure these people will be the first to buy these updated hardware and mass market dont cares updated model due to cost (this is why PS VR will be most successful one as it has chance of mass adaption due to price even it does not have graphics like OR and Vive), so mast market will be happy as long as their system getting same games and not separated from premium model in games and ecosystem. Its nice that we will be able to play some of the sony first games at 60 fps without waiting for remaster because of this.

 

[ThoughtsOfSpeaking]

Read my post. Phones and TVs are ubiquitous necessity purchase that can't be ignored or put off, in most cases. You don't worry about future models because your current one is broken or run-down to the point of irritation, and you need a new model.

This is ridiculous. Outside of the Digital switchover (which im not entirely sure has even happened in the US), any TV bought over the last 8 years is perfectly viable to use, long as it is still working. If people have upgraded,they have done for new features or to replace broken items.

Likewise for the basic functions of making a call, receiving and send texts, a Nokia 702 has as much utility as the iPhone 6s. Outside of a few battery and charger replacement, one might argue that its a better performer in those areas too. People again replace their phones for new features, or to replace broken hardware. They dont "have" to do it at all.

Food is a necessity purchase. Toliet roll is a neccessity purchase. Even then you could farm your own food and use your hand to wipe your ass. You dont have to buy anything.

Console purchases can be put off indefinitely in most cases. And it's not as if people aren't going to start putting off phone purchases more and more as the new handsets start to offer less desirable and tangible features. Comparing consoles to phones is ridiculous considering that carrier subsidies and now no-interest loans have been propping up the two-year upgrade cycle for the better part of a decade. If AT&T is going to let people buy a new PS4K for $100, then I'd probably think the incremental upgrades are not as big of a deal.

Every purchase outside of food or its cultivation can be put off indefintely. Lets not try and pretend that the majority of our spending is not on luxuries that we dont need to survive.

Carrier subsides even the US have been going the way of the dodo for the past few years. AT&T actually are stopping 2 year contracts entirely. People still upgrade their devices and people have always bought phones off contract.

Regardless, phones are not the only consumer electronic device with an iterative model. Tablets carry no subsidy and are updated yearly. So are PCs, so are montiors, Tvs, music players, ebook readers, smartwatches, drones, etc etc etc.

Speakers and headphones are cheap, and most people aren't audiophiles that care that much about how speakers will perform several years down the line. My understanding is that audio and video tech doesn't really run on the sort of steep curve that gaming/computer tech does anyway. Will there be better TV and headphones in 2 years? Maybe. Does the average Joe buying a Vizio care? Will he even be able to tell the difference? Probably not.

Please explain the growth of beats then. Because I can tell you right now, no audiophile would be caught dead with a pair of them. They have a dimmer view of beats than Gaffers have of mobile games. Or better yet explain DJ equipment. Sound systems. Home cinema. Imax. Do you think these are running on a "buy once last 7 years between models" system. As for the "average joe buying a Vizio" im sure he wont care. But by that same logic neither should you about the PS4:NEO. You are perfectly welcome to ignore the advance in tech and just be happy with the device you own.
.[/QUOTE]

 

[wapplew]

The original PS4 owner is still getting VR content. You're buying a PSVR headset right now knowing it is vastly inferior to a PC headset.

Quite honestly you should expect a VR experience in line with what a console can and cannot deliver the second you decide to go for PSVR. The alternative already is all your friends on PC headsets will be getting experiences most likely day 1 the PS4 can't do. If you can accept this and allow PC owners to enjoy better experiences than you, you should be able to accept PS4 Neo and then PS5 owners will experience VR content you can't, unless you upgrade as well.

The main thing for Sony is the headset is scaleable between iterations of consoles, so they're not asking you to buy a new headset.

Reality cannot be bent simply to appease your expectations of VR. It simply requires a lot of power, and certain things a PC can do are going to be impossible on a console, or improbable until a console gets better. Your scenario requires Sony to be happy seeing PSVR fall further behind and maybe even risk losing it's market waiting on the PS5 to come about. As a business heavily invested in VR, this isn't going to be allowed to happen. Nor should it FOR those PSVR headset buyers. Then it really is DOA.

VR is going to be an expensive hobby for many years to come for ANYONE investing in it. Even on PC. It's new tech and will move fairly rapidly. It's best just to avoid it for the time being if you don't want to pony up cash to stay relevant.

You honestly think fuck over day 1 PSVR customers a year after release is the only way PSVR can compete?
Sony is building a new platform here, a new brand, betray customers trust is last thing they want. It will kill PSVR.

 

[Audioboxer]

You honestly think fuck over day 1 PSVR customers a year after release is the only way PSVR can compete?
Sony is building a new platform here, a new brand, betray customers trust is last thing they want. It will kill PSVR.

Betraying is in the eye of the beholder. If you cannot accept technically a VR experience is not do-able on the hardware you invested in you have difficulties accepting reality.

You better buckle up when the PS5 hits and your PSVR headset has a slew of experiences exclusive to a more powerful PS5. Sony expect you to invest in a PSVR headset to be an accessory used across platforms, and while being used on any given platform for you to enjoy the experiences that can realistically be made on that platform. Not to pine over what you can't experience, or what someone else is experiencing because they spent more money.

I think the only way any VR platform can continue to be relevant more than a year is to somehow be able to stay in touch with what a PC can and will do. I mean the bigger thing for you or anyone else to be worried about is when the next round of VR headsets kick off and require another $$$ investment. It's whats going to happen in this VR emerging tech world. Be prepared to pony up, to think otherwise is to defy the logic behind what is going to happen.

If anyone can't accept that then I really just recommend staying the fuck away from VR for now. There's no point in feigning sympathy for early VR adopters, they should know what they're getting into with a brand new consumer tech.

 

[tzare]

How do you "lock" someone into a ecosystem with Neo?
If you mean all your digital purchase carry over to the next system, a backward compatible PS5 will do the job with or without Neo.
So, what's the purpose of Neo here? Keeping customer away from NX or Xbox 1.5 in case they want to jump ship for better hardware?

well, it will probaly force many 'hardcore' console gamers to buy PS4neo, so again, keep investing on their ecosystem by making HW more attractive and powerful without the need to wait a full generation, a bit like PC gamers that keep their software and upgrade when they see fit, and obviously keep investing in software for playstation, also some games they played before may have visual upgrades, so it is a nice bonus.

For people who do not have the system, you will probably have a cheaper basic ps4, so you can still acces to the huge catalog of games, and for those willing to spend a little more also ps4 neo, and that may also prevent some to buy an XB2 or NX, since you already have tons of games to play and have invested in a console recently.
For already ps4 owners nothing changes. Some will make the jump, so even more tied to your ecosystem, and obviously more chances to buy ps5 or ps5.5. Some won't and will keep ps4 until next generation and act just have done previously.

Also on the software side, late into the gen, PC games will have the clear advantage so late generation console customers will also probably look at the Neo as the best option.

But hey, just my thoughts, in the end market sometimes is unpredictable, and execution needs to be well done, and by that i mean PS4 games must not be gimped versions of the ps4neo

 

[ThoughtsOfSpeaking]

Great post OP, I work in GAME in the UK and you hit the nail on the head




Retail will handle it fine. In Europe at least, Sony fucking love their 'fixed' bundles. Over Christmas last year we had multiple variations of PS4 bundles (at least 7) that were all under different skus.

Maybe a bad comparison, but retail deals with tonnes of different skus already, not just for consoles, but for games (standard, limited, gold, collectors), and even things like headsets, so we are used to it

As for consumers, the explaining of different variations of products is what people like me are there for. Going back to the headset comparison, we have to explain to some people that they will need a headset adapter for their controller if they still have the old style, and what your money gets you (e.g. if you pay more for a headset, you are likely getting a better experience). So it isn't something new. And as people have alluded to already, it is much easier explaining an iterative upgrade now because of the phone market

Hay dude,

I know this is early, but do you think you have an idea of how you will handle preorders and trade ins? Do you reckon ill be able to preorder on the day of annoucement and then trade in my console a few days before release?

 

[biggersmaller]

Retail loves the chance to sell a follow-up to an already popular product, and hardware is still something bought in store more regularly than online. That said, Sony won this gen with a simple message to consumers:

PS4 plays PS4 games.

Sony found success in largely avoiding the voice/motion controlled TV media device messaging of "it does x and Y and Z." Why muck that proven message up with a split market and with two tiers - well, three with VR? Hell, it took them years for an official BT media remote to be released - and even THEN it was 3rd party.

Retail buyers are happy with the prospect of lines out the door for hot hardware, BUT this kind of iteration on existing gaming hardware has been tried before with mixed results. It's a bigger gamble than this generation of retail buyers may realize as iteration on mobile has always been gold - but again, this is gaming. It's different.

 

[redcrayon]

Just while people are talking about the phone analogy, while a new model appears every year, it's not like sales of older ones dry up, the price drop of the previous model is enough reason for a chunk of the market to go for that if they aren't concerned about being on the bleeding edge.

I don't need the best phone going, and I don't need to have the best possible games console either. I've just upgraded my old iPhone 4 to a 5S, as the cost/benefit on that model worked out better for me than a 6S.

Same goes for a portable- I spend most of my gaming time on a portable, but haven't felt the need to run out and buy a new 3DS even if my favourite games like Monster Hunter run better on it. My current 3DS XL is 'good enough', I might upgrade when the NX portable comes out eventually.

As for games consoles, I haven't got a PS4 yet, but I'd consider both the basic model and the 'neo' when I do get around to picking one up, weighing up the price vs what I'd get out of it. The higher performance might well be of critical import to a good chunk of their most loyal customers, but to the more general audience, having a choice of prices and models isn't a bad thing. If better performance and being better for VR costs an extra £200 (for example), then I'd be asking myself how much either really mattered to me if the base unit was still going to run the games I want well enough for my standards that are probably lower than those who buy everything on day one.

The difference in price is going to interesting, as to whether it makes the upgrade seem like an obvious basic choice for a new buyer, or a premium model that might offer far more than they need.

 

[Lemondish]

Keep in mind that what I'm talking about is mostly just a distrust and "wait and see" attitude that will slow down adoption rates on newer hardware.

When Toyota announces a new $15K Corolla, nobody waits around to see if there might be a new $15K Lexus introduced 2 years later. Lexus doesn't make cars that cheap and they probably never will. The pricepoints between the luxury brand and the economy brand are so insanely far apart that doesn't even factor into a consumer's decision. But if we're talking about the difference between a $400 console now and a $400 revision a little later, I think that's a difference that will encourage people to hold out.....especially if they already feel burned by the swift introduction of the PS4K.

Your analogy falls flat the moment you consider that waiting two more years for the next Camry model results in a more feature rich product than what you would get by buying it today.

I can't imagine anybody legitimately holding off on purchasing a PlayStation because of a potential upgrade unless they're being driven by irrational passion. If you're not sold on the product, you probably wouldn't but any version of it.

Almost all consumer product lines iterate over time. Do those same consumers wait to buy a TV, phone, kitchen appliance, higher education, car, etc. ? No. And those products don't "reset" the market with a new entry every 5 to 7 years.

 

[ThoughtsOfSpeaking]

Just while people are talking about the phone analogy, while a new model appears every year, it's not like sales of older ones dry up, the price drop of the previous model is enough reason for a chunk of the market to go for that if they aren't concerned about being on the bleeding edge.

I don't need the best phone going, and I don't need to have the best possible games console either. I've just upgraded my old iPhone 4 to a 5S, as the cost/benefit on that model worked out better for me than a 6S.

Same goes for a portable- I spent most of my gaming time on a portable, but haven't felt the need to run out and buy a new 3DS even if my favourite games like Monster Hunter run better on it. My current 3DS XL is 'good enough', I might upgrade when the NX portable comes out eventually.

As for games consoles, I haven't got a PS4 yet, but I'd consider both the basic model and the 'neo' when I do get around to picking one up, weighing up the price vs what I'd get out of it. The higher performance might well be of critical import to a good chunk of their most loyal customers, but to the more general audience, having a choice of prices and models isn't a bad thing.

Perfect example of this...I bought a Note 4 when the Note 5 was released as i didnt like the direct samsung is going. Rather than feeling pressured to upgrade to the latest and greatest, I upgraded to the device that best suited my needs.

Under a console model, the jump would have been from Note 1 to 5 with no stops inbetween.

 

[dgrdsv]

How?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And they all play

As long as the marketing is on point, it'll be clear as day for the mass market even if reality is that the PS4K will have "some" advantages on 1080p as well).

It won't play games in 4K though, most games will run in 1080p and that will make things a bit awkward.

 

[Dunkers92]

Hay dude,

I know this is early, but do you think you have an idea of how you will handle preorders and trade ins? Do you reckon ill be able to preorder on the day of annoucement and then trade in my console a few days before release?

Preorders for hardware usually go up the day after the announcement. I can't see it going any different than other hardware launches, it will be first come first serve.

You will be able to trade in your old console for sure any time up to release, and after of you wanted. As for things like special trade in deals, honestly this is stuff that gets decided a lot closer to release (depending on preorder numbers etc). If I was to guess now, I would say there will be some sort of trade in deal to help with the cost a bit more.

 

[redcrayon]

Perfect example of this...I bought a Note 4 when the Note 5 was released as i didnt like the direct samsung is going. Rather than feeling pressured to upgrade to the latest and greatest, I upgraded to the device that best suited my needs.

Under a console model, the jump would have been from Note 1 to 5 with no stops inbetween.

Absolutely. If incremental advances are the future, then a good chunk of the audience is going to be happy skipping some of those increments and only upgrading three or four models or years down the line, and even then not necessarily to the newest model. If having to have the latest and newest model bothers someone, console hardware is going to get very expensive for them, much as if PC gamers bought the newest kit on principle rather than a setup designed to last a few years regardless of future advances, or people who buy every new phone at launch.

It's just a case of working out whether you want to buy a high performance setup tailored to you every few years because that's what your hobby is and how you get the most from your games and budget, or whether you need to constantly have the best available performing kit on principal, begrudgingly opening your wallet at launch every time. The latter is always going to seem much more expensive than the former.

 

[Ricky_R]

I'm willing to bet that PS4 owners will get the short end of the stick when it comes to performance/optimization. I hope not, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Bitch Pudding]

Thanks Abdiel for your insights, much appreciated.

Absolutely agree btw.

This iterative system has the potential (no more, no less) to become a true game changer for the industry.

 

[Shredderi]

I am definitely the audience for this. See I'm only in it for the games, consoles themselves be damned. I also want the games at their very best so getting this is a no brainer for me. It's one of my favourite past-times and my favourite form of media entertainment so I'm prepared to invest the money in it. So i'll save 50e aside each month until the release of the thing. Chump change.

But I totally understand people who are fine with the PS4 and have no desire to upgrade yet. And yeah thanks for the OP for making the thread.

 

[thuway]

I worry about mass market perception.

Sony will have to be very smart when marketing this device. The reaction from the internet hardcore has people running away with the idea that suddenly the original PS4 is obsolete and completely useless once PS4K hits. The concept of a premium console has officially become a joke/meme/insult- not because it offers better graphics, but the notion that it somehow invalidates and delegitimizes the original PS4.

How do you market a device that offers premium quality visuals and a substantial jump in fidelity without offending or sullying original PS4 owners? I think, more than anything, people are afraid that their PS4 purchase is on it's last legs and will somehow become the red headed step child. We all know, Sony isn't stupid enough to abandon the original PS4 and this is probably an internet narrative driven from the confines of the unknown. One thing is for sure- Sony has to go out of their way to insure, reinforce, and drive home to consumers that PS4 is not going anywhere, and in fact- will be just as important to the ecosystem as it's roided' up older brother.

Spoiler

Good luck PlayStation PR.

 

[Audioboxer]

I worry about mass market perception.

Sony will have to be very smart when marketing this device. The reaction from the internet hardcore has people running away with the idea that suddenly the original PS4 is obsolete and completely useless once PS4K hits. The concept of a premium console has officially become a joke/meme/insult- not because it offers better graphics, but the notion that it somehow invalidates and delegitimizes the original PS4.

How do you market a device that offers premium quality visuals and a substantial jump in fidelity without offending or sullying original PS4 owners? I think, more than anything, people are afraid that their PS4 purchase is on it's last legs and will somehow become the red headed step child. We all know, Sony isn't stupid enough to abandon the original PS4 and this is probably an internet narrative driven from the confines of the unknown. One thing is for sure- Sony has to go out of their way to insure, reinforce, and drive home to consumers that PS4 is not going anywhere, and in fact- will be just as important to the ecosystem as it's roided' up older brother.

Spoiler

Good luck PlayStation PR.

I guess by putting it out and seeing how the market reacts. Seeing if the outrage online turns into actual shunning of it, or if it flies off the shelf similar to how a slim revision does.

Then I guess stat collecting on the divide between who is playing TLG/*insert any other Sony exclusive* on an original PS4, and who is playing it on a Neo.

Turn that into PR, and if it's selling well you can blow your own trumpet. For any dev unrest, there will be some dev somewhere publicly stating more power does offer more, and Sony can parade that around like Colins sources, and have a ton of pages on GAF.

As long as it doesn't flop, PR won't be that hard. Just in the same way boycotts of games fall a bit flat when companies announce record breaking sales. Personally, IMO, the hardcore will eat this up (as it's going to sport some sort of physical redesign as well), and Sony will be smuggishly releasing a PR statement after the first month saying it has sold "insert decent number here". Then just sprinkle said PR release with "all these great games coming soon to every PS4 owner".

Can I have a job Sony?

 

[NightOnyx]

What? Some people can play the same games that I have with better graphics? I feel "second class" now.

It makes no sense to me either. It's nice to have options. VERY nice, actually.
I can pay more and get better graphics/performance? Great! All PS4 (PS4 and PS4K) owners can still play all games? Great!

Nobody is forcing you to buy anything. You have options. Vote with your wallet.

That's exactly how I feel. I'm very happy about getting a machine that will run games better. I really have no interest in a gaming PC, I prefer the console experience and I like having the option to have a more power PS4 to experience the games on.

I think having options is great and I'm not sure why people hate the idea of a Neo so much. I mean if the base PS4 games take a hit on quality then I can understand, but if they are able to keep the quality of the PS4 games the same while still having the option of the Neo for people who want better quality graphics and frame rate, then why is that so bad?

 

[Abdiel]

"For the players....with more money than you".

The OP responded to an early reply saying that, if you are objecting to the incremental upgrading, that's because this upgrade is not targeted at you. You are not the target demographic for it. Fair enough. But that implicitly accepts that base-level PS4 owners are no-longer the target demographic for Sony producing the best that they can produce. There is no way around that. It'll work. But it won't be the best thing we made.

Offering a premium version of any product by definition states that those not buying it are getting a lesser product.

Some might be fine with that. In fact, some might like a cheaper entry point to the PS4 experience. The thing is, the PS4 would have dropped in price anyway, whereas this allows Sony to once again go back to selling a product to gamers at the top price, giving the illusion that the "lower" entry point is a bargain.

The phone analogy only works when people know their entry point. If someone goes into a shop today and buys a Galaxy s6. They already know they are not getting the top of the range phone, but because it;s cheaper than the s.7, they are happy with that.

PS4 (and XB1) customers bought their systems knowing that their boxes represented to greatest technological capacity presented by each company this generation. That their software on it would max out their hardware but never go beyond it. They'd never make a game that their box could not run AT IT'S BEST on their company's console.

There will be 40m Sony customers who Sony are now developing software for, whose products simply won't run at the level Sony produce them.

It's perfectly understandable why plenty of people are objecting to this.

That said. If either company went all in with the phone analogy and offered me a 3 year contract for £20 a month, including LIVE/Plus...and I got the console for FREE, with a FREE upgrade in 3 years time, I'd take it.

The problem with how you're filtering this perspective is that Sony will be continuing to provide you with the best available content for your existing hardware. You're not losing anything. This is an option for those that wish to pay to get a premium option, they'll be able to take advantage of improved hardware. But it doesn't take away from those existing customers.

Not only that, this only incentivizes Sony to keep the base model as lucrative as possible, because if they can keep the price lower and more accessible, it only further accelerates those sales, which in turn builds software sales and growth. It's good for their entire platform if they can do so properly.

Leveraging this effectively would give them new ways to expand their base for the whole platform, not just the new side.

 

[ThoughtsOfSpeaking]

I worry about mass market perception.

Sony will have to be very smart when marketing this device. The reaction from the internet hardcore has people running away with the idea that suddenly the original PS4 is obsolete and completely useless once PS4K hits. The concept of a premium console has officially become a joke/meme/insult- not because it offers better graphics, but the notion that it somehow invalidates and delegitimizes the original PS4.

How do you market a device that offers premium quality visuals and a substantial jump in fidelity without offending or sullying original PS4 owners? I think, more than anything, people are afraid that their PS4 purchase is on it's last legs and will somehow become the red headed step child. We all know, Sony isn't stupid enough to abandon the original PS4 and this is probably an internet narrative driven from the confines of the unknown. One thing is for sure- Sony has to go out of their way to insure, reinforce, and drive home to consumers that PS4 is not going anywhere, and in fact- will be just as important to the ecosystem as it's roided' up older brother.

Spoiler

Good luck PlayStation PR.

I wish people would stop worrying on behalf a faceless corporation.

If it fails it fails. Its not like it isnt a experiement, an attempt to try something different. PSPgo failed, it didnt stop the vita coming out. XboxOG failed, it didnt stop the 360. The WiiU failed, its not preventing the NX from happening. If PSVR fails, it doesnt prevent VR from becoming a thing the future.

Stop worrying about the what ifs. If the device is a good deal for you, buy it. If its not, dont. Everything else is just noise.

 

[jroc74]

The phone market should be dead with this mentality, but it isn't, and that is YEARLY.

The phone, TV, PC component, auto, DVD, etc. all should be dead.

But for some reason this is such a bad idea for consoles. As long as the messaging is clear it should be fine. If no one wants it they wont buy it.

Regardless Sony will look at the results and go from there.

 

[Elandyll]

It won't play games in 4K though, most games will run in 1080p and that will make things a bit awkward.

Mass market will not care about technicalities.

It's not about what it "can" do (some games 4k, more likely indies/ less graphically intensive, most being upscaled). It's about how it is being marketed, and here it's about the new 4K TV owners.

The question was about market confusion, and I posit that as long as the pricing and message are clear, there won't be any.

 

[thuway]

I wish people would stop worrying on behalf a faceless corporation.

If it fails it fails. Its not like it isnt a experiement, an attempt to try something different. PSPgo failed, it didnt stop the vita coming out. XboxOG failed, it didnt stop the 360. The WiiU failed, its not preventing the NX from happening. If PSVR fails, it doesnt prevent VR from becoming a thing the future.

Stop worrying about the what ifs. If the device is a good deal for you, buy it. If its not, dont. Everything else is just noise.

I don't worry about faceless corporations, I'm expressing a hypothetical in a thread dedicated to Retail Perspective. If this fails, it's no skin off my back, but as an enthuasist, I like the idea of iterative consoles and I'm just driving home the point on how important PR is to it's success because you'd have to be tone deaf to not respect the uncertainty from journalists, social media, and forum goers.

 

[The Flash]

Great post OP. Very informative. I've had a little experience selling tech at retail and I think you're spot on when it comes to a consumer's perspective on core and premium models. I always explained tablet/laptop/phone models to customers in terms of good, better, and best. Very few people go for better/best. Most are just looking for a good deal. Can't tell you how many garbage tier laptops I've sold because people just wanted something in their price range. Sony, as you said, have done a great job selling the PS4. It shouldn't be difficult to explain the difference between the Base and the Neo to average consumers but then again tech companies tend to mess that part up a lot.

 

[dragonzdogma]

I just don't understand the outrage. Aren't all electronics iteratively updated? Televisions, cellphones, modular components in PCs. I honestly prefer this route.

In my opinion is the fact that the sony console cycle lasted more than 8-9 years. So as long as ps4 games are still being made, I think we'll be fine.

 

[MilkyJoe]

Mass market will not care about technicalities.

It's not about what it "can" do (some games 4k, more likely indies/ less graphically intensive, most being upscaled). It's about how it is being marketed, and here it's about the new 4K TV owners.

The question was about market confusion, and I posit that as long as the pricing and message are clear, there won't be any.

You cant market a product as 4K when it's not, at least here.

I think people need to drop the PS4K it's a name given to it by people making shit up.

If a PS4 can barely do 1080p at 30fps how is a console equal to 2 X PS4 going to push 4 X the resolution at 30fps??

 

[ThoughtsOfSpeaking]

I don't worry about faceless corporations, I'm expressing a hypothetical in a thread dedicated to Retail Perspective. If this fails, it's no skin off my back, but as an enthuasist, I like the idea of iterative consoles and I'm just driving home the point on how important PR is to it's success because you'd have to be tone deaf to not respect the uncertainty from journalists, social media, and forum goers.

Social media has actually been resoundingly positive, long as you cast your net past the typical gaming circles. Thats the biggest irony of all this. The people who seem to be most down on this are the insular forum types and the journalists that feed them.

Everyone else is a mixture of meh, cautiously optimistic and enthusiastic. As ive said before, hardcore forum users are only tastemakers at the very beginning of a generation. Ultimately what we think means very little at this point.

 

[Z3M0G]

If this leads to say a 20% increase in production costs of a game by a developer/publisher (increased development time, increased QA time, increased certification time), they need a means to make that money back. This could mean a stronger push for microtransactions (most likely), maybe even increased retail cost (unlikely).

 

[Teletraan1]

Initially I felt burned because this is a new thing. When I bought my PS4 at launch I did so with the expectation that I would buy one and it would last the generation. This mid cycle upgrade was not an option at the time. So that choice of waiting or not was kind of retroactively taken from me. There really hasn't been an exclusive on this machine of note for me outside of Disgaea 5. I might not have purchased a PS4 based on 1 game and waited until Neo hits and played everything I missed.

On the flip side I bowed out of the PS360 generation mid point because my PC was miles ahead of those consoles and I grew tired of 20ish fps and vaseline smear visuals. Had we gotten mid season replacements in that generation I might have bought in again.

I just find it funny that the general tone has been that these consoles are underpowered and blah blah blah titan x. But now they want to update them to be a bit more powerful and we get the general tone shift to how it is a mistake. It seems like they are doing it right with it playing anything that plays on PS4. Same games, just enhanced with a premium SKU. I am in favor of it now and it should push VR better than the vanilla console so that is a win from my perspective.

 

[Audioboxer]

If this leads to say a 20% increase in production costs of a game by a developer/publisher (increased development time, increased QA time, increased certification time), they need a means to make that money back. This could mean a stronger push for microtransactions (most likely), maybe even increased retail cost (unlikely).

What year is it? That's happening anyway.

As for throwing numbers at production cost increases, I think that's a slippery slope until any dev does shed light on it. I mean 20% sounds daunting, but what are you basing that on? And 20% of what, overall costs, or 20% more having to be paid to Q&A testers?

 

[jroc74]

Parents are going to be confused as fuck.

lol I do have an anecdote about this:

Wii vs Wii U Spiderman game. We just got a Wii U. Kids mother went to Walmart and got them the game a few weeks later...for the Wii.

The problem with that was they shoulda been with her in the game section. But I agree parents not informed will get the wrong thing.

Thats why its good the PS4, Neo will be interchangeable with games. Its not even considered B/C because its going to be the exact same game....just Neo owners getting a patch...according to the leaks.

The biggest problem with my Spiderman example....different controller inputs. They coudlnt even play the game because we needed batteries for the Wiimotes.

If a parent gets confused with PS4 and Neo at least the person getting the game will still be able to play it on first start up. As for the console....Sony just needs clear packaging that shows the difference between a PS4 and Neo console.

I see this pushing the PS4 to PS2 levels when it gets priced lower..depending on the price.

 

[Muzicfreq]

The phone market should be dead with this mentality, but it isn't, and that is YEARLY.

The phone these days is a fashion accessory and is portable and allows you to do a whole hell of alot more than a game console.

 

[Audioboxer]

The phone these days is a fashion accessory and is portable and allows you to do a whole hell of alot more than a game console.

As much as phone comparisons are downright dumb, the highlighted is in a way relevant. Redesign this PS4, make it slimmer, or at least look "cooler" and they'll have buyers anyway that like shiny new things. People already spend extra on LE PS4s, different colours and what not.

Tying it in with a redesign will only help sales.

 

[Bitch Pudding]

I'm aware of Neo will give us better performance or graphics but I'm not talking about enhance version of the same game. I'm talking about exclusive titles build from ground up with that hardware capability in mind.

Yes, I know games on 980ti look or run better compare to 970, but they are essentially playing same games.
What I want is PS5 exclusive game, not PS4/PS4.5 games enhance version, that's not what I want for my latest hardware.

.

I share your concerns on PS5, although forcing every game to run on PS4 and PS5 does sound rather unlikely. (fixed that)

So how about we just put a pin in that discussion, for now, and focus on the immediate impacts.

 

[barit]

Retailers would love to sell you the newest and hottest product? Nooo way. I bet they would also love an annually upgraded console so they can even make more profit. I'm shocked.

Thanks OP, I don't understand how it could be bad for the videogame industry. People fear changes.

Thank you so much, Abdiel. So many people like to think that their personal opinion on a topic is representative of the mass market, but in actuality, NeoGAF is a niche community.

Where did I read that all once before? Oh right 2013 when MS showed their all-digital future plan. Something that went really great right?


It's still a bad idea. If the upgrades are so trivial and consumers could easly ignore it why even bother with this mess then? I can guarantee you already that the negative backlash at E3 will be much bigger than the few positive ones.

 

[potatohead]

lol I do have an anecdote about this:

Wii vs Wii U Spiderman game. We just got a Wii U. Kids mother went to Walmart and got them the game a few weeks later...for the Wii.

The problem with that was they shoulda been with her in the game section. But I agree parents not informed will get the wrong thing.

Thats why its good the PS4, NEO will be interchangeable with games. Its not even considered B/C because its going to be the exact same game....just Neo owners getting a patch...according to the leaks.

The biggest problem with my Spiderman example....different controller inputs. They coudlnt even play the game because we needed batteries for the Wiimotes.

If a parent gets confused with PS4 and Neo at least the person getting the game will still be able to play it on first start up.

I see this pushing the PS4 to PS2 levels when it gets priced lower..depending on the price.

Yup.

 

[Primethius]

Retailers would love to sell you the newest and hottest product? Nooo way. I bet they would also love an annually upgraded console so they can even make more profit. I'm shocked.








Where did I read that all once before? Oh right 2013 when MS showed their all-digital future plan. Something that went really great right?


It's still a bad idea. If the upgrades are so trivial and consumers could easly ignore it why even bother with this mess then? I can guarantee you already that the negative backlash at E3 will be much bigger than the few positive ones.

You think Abdiel is trying to sell you the PS4K in a GAF thread?

And you think this whole thing is somehow comparable to the MS 2013 reveal?

Ohboy.gif