Support NeoGAF

[nib95]

your TV example is in favor of ps4.5? New TVs come out every year... Not many ppl buy new TVs every yr, because their TVs still work just fine. It's gonna be the same with PS4.... It will still work! So the idea that it negatively affects the longevity of the OG PS4 makes no sense...

As far as ppl waiting for the more advanced version... The majority never do that with consumer electronics, why would they start now?

Not remotely the same. Most differences between TV models are minor at best, especially if you were savvy in your initial purchase in the first place. In-fact, my 2008 Pioneer Kuro is still one of the best TV's money can buy, despite now being nearly a decade old. The only reason I even bought new TV's was not to replace my older one, but because I had more rooms I needed the new TV's for. Even then, I can't see myself replacing neither my Kuro or my VT65 plasma till one of them dies.

Consoles are a different kettle of fish altogether. You buy them because they're a fixed, convenient platform that you hope will give you years of software enjoyment before they lose out on being the primary focus of that platform, and new hardware is released that takes away the limelight. Iterative console releases change that dynamic, and will inevitably divide the time and budget of developers and studios between the vanilla and upgraded versions of the hardware. Add to that, unlike say TV's or mobile phones, I feel like the differences will be more notable despite the shorter time frame between releases. But we shall see.

 

[Fisty]

This post and the points brought up are baffling to me.

Everything you described will still happen with the PS4K being introduced, and in-fact it'll be even worse, as there is more fragmentation and even more consoles for developers to have to cater for, or transition away from with respect to cross platform releases towards the end of a cycle.

Secondly, there is no way that instead of a true next generation release, e.g. the PS5, we simply get continuous iterational releases that are still further held back by not only the PS4K, but also the PS4. The entire point of a generational leap is that you can truly expand on new technologies, features, graphics and tech, which being tied down to older hardware absolutely nullifies and prevents. Cross gen games (e.g. PS3/PS4, or 360/XO) generally suffer and pale in comparison to next gen only games, and what you're suggesting is essentially a perpetual cycle of cross gen releases, by virtue of continuous iterative hardware releases, that would not only stifle technological and graphical progress, but also hamper gameplay design through limiting potential in constantly being held back by older hardware.

Thats not exactly how i see things going. It would make more sense to have 6-7 year gens if we get a mid-gen refresh in between, with how other platforms have handled things. PS4 could probably play PS5 games and backwards compatibility would be a lock if hardware is iterative like how the mid-gen refresh is. It would be like buying a new med-high PC every 3 years from Sony, yeah eventually the games would likely look and run like garbage but you'd expect that anyway with new software on old hardware. Or they could just not put PS5 games on PS4 and just have easy backwards compatibility. Either way though i dont see Sony going crazy with the architecture anytime soon, those days are over i think.

 

[wapplew]

I expect Sony to put that fear to rest when they official announce it. They would not be banking so hard on this being tied to the PS4 development to the point not having exclusive features for PS4K if they wanted to move to iterative models, nor would they be calling it the PS4K...

They know that the base standard is going to need a huge boost eventually, and PS5 will give that.

This is an "interim" console, to feed their base with a more powerful option.

I doubt Sony will talk about what's going forward. They certainly won't talk about PS5.
But there's huge different between "iterative console with a traditional business model“ and ”iterative console with iOS/PC model“.
Most poster here still talking about "iterative console with a traditional business model“ as in there will be a new generation, a PS5 in traditional sense.

 

[Welfare]

Did people already forget what happened with the Xbox launch and PS3? What people say on the internet does matter to a significant degree.

Those were times where everyone's opinion basically lined up. Xbox One was very anti-consumer at reveal, pushed people away, and launch price was $499 with Kinect, and the PS3 was five hundred and ninety-nine USD.

And to the statement, no. Just no. Rarely if ever does the internet have an actual say or can change an outcome from happening in the console space.

 

[GHG]

This post and the points brought up are baffling to me.

Everything you described will still happen with the PS4K being introduced, and in-fact it'll be even worse, as there is more fragmentation and even more consoles for developers to have to cater for, or transition away from with respect to cross platform releases towards the end of a cycle.

Secondly, there is no way that instead of a true next generation release, e.g. the PS5, we simply get continuous iterational releases that are still further held back by not only the PS4K, but also the PS4. The entire point of a generational leap is that you can truly expand on new technologies, features, graphics and tech, which being tied down to older hardware absolutely nullifies and prevents. Cross gen games (e.g. PS3/PS4, or 360/XO) generally suffer and pale in comparison to next gen only games, and what you're suggesting is essentially a perpetual cycle of cross gen releases, by virtue of continuous iterative hardware releases, that would not only stifle technological and graphical progress, but also hamper gameplay design through limiting potential in constantly being held back by older hardware.

How on earth does it create more fragmentation? When you develop for Android or IOS do you need to write separate code for each device that your program/game is going to be compatible with? What about PC with all the different hardware configurations?

Microsoft have UWP and if Sony have any sense I'm sure they will keep the Neo within the existing PS4 SDK. So at that point it's simple, you write one codebase which scales across multiple devices. You do not need to code separately for each iteration like you would have had to in years gone by when there were clean generation breaks.

With regards to graphics innovation we have unfortunately (or fortunately) reached a point where graphics would be classified as "good enough" for most people. We have reached the point of diminishing returns when it comes to improvements in computer graphics. Look at what Insomniac, Ready at Dawn, Guerrilla and Naughty Dog have been able to achieve so far with the base PS4 hardware. Nobody makes games like Crysis anymore, the cost is simply too much to justify. The cost of hardware to get significant improvements would also be too much to justify unless you're going to tell me you want a $599+ console and for Sony/Microsoft to eat some of the costs?

Nothing is stopping gameplay innovation. Nothing. The hardware available at the moment is more than good enough for developers to get creative and come up with new and fresh ideas. Name me one game that has come out this gen that truly couldn't have been done on a last gen console from a gameplay design perspective. There are a many other reasons why we don't see much gameplay design innovation at the moment, the hardware (or lack of) isn't one of them.

 

[wapplew]

How on earth does it create more fragmentation? When you develop for Android or IOS do you need to write separate code for each device that your program/game is going to be compatible with? What about PC with all the different hardware configurations?

Microsoft have UWP and if Sony have any sense I'm sure they will keep the Neo within the existing PS4 SDK. So at that point it's simple, you write one codebase which scales across multiple devices. You do not need to code separately for each iteration like you would have had to in years gone by when there were clean generation breaks.

With regards to graphics innovation we have unfortunately (or fortunately) reached a point where graphics would be classified as "good enough" for most people. We have reached the point of diminishing returns when it comes to improvements in computer graphics. Look at what Insomniac, Ready at Dawn, Guerrilla and Naughty Dog have been able to achieve so far with the base PS4 hardware. Nobody makes games like Crysis anymore, the cost is simply too much to justify. The cost of hardware to get significant improvements would also be too much to justify unless you're going to tell me you want a $599+ console and for Sony/Microsoft to eat some of the costs?

Nothing is stopping gameplay innovation. Nothing. The hardware available at the moment is more than good enough for developers to get creative and come up with new and fresh ideas. Name me one game that has come out this gen that truly couldn't have been done on a last gen console from a gameplay design perspective. There are a many other reasons why we don't see much gameplay design innovation at the moment, the hardware (or lack of) isn't one of them.

Not so sure about that. Games made for 8GB of ram can be very different from games made for 16GB of ram.
Battlefield 4, 64 players vs 24 players on last gen? Would you say it's huge gameplay different?

 

[DannyDanger]

Not remotely the same. Most differences between TV models are minor at best, especially if you were savvy in your initial purchase in the first place. In-fact, my 2008 Pioneer Kuro is still one of the best TV's money can buy, despite now being nearly a decade old. The only reason I even bought new TV's was not to replace my older one, but because I had more rooms I needed the new TV's for. Even then, I can't see myself replacing neither my Kuro or my VT65 plasma till one of them dies.

Consoles are a different kettle of fish altogether. You buy them because they're a fixed, convenient platform that you hope will give you years of software enjoyment before they lose out on being the primary focus of that platform, and new hardware is released that takes away the limelight. Iterative console releases change that dynamic, and will inevitably divide the time and budget of developers and studios between the vanilla and upgraded versions of the hardware. Add to that, unlike say TV's or mobile phones, I feel like the differences will be more notable despite the shorter time frame between releases. But we shall see.

That's the thing, you may buy for longevity, others may buy just to keep up with the latest tech... There are too many different reasons for ppl to purchase consoles for you to be able to make the call on "why ppl buy consoles"...

Also I'm not even sure how the longevity is affected here it's still gonna work... It's still gonna get new software, the company is still supporting it. I severely doubt the mass market cares what platform is the primary focus, as long as their version performs acceptably.

 

[Goldenmoney]

Iterative hardware is not a new concept. Nintendo already does this with their handhelds, 3ds and new 3ds being the most recent example.

My fear is that games developed for ps4k are not going to run well at all on ps4, thus making people feel forced to upgrade. It could leave a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths. With phones, tv's, laptops, etc., you don't really get that same push to upgrade because each iteration is such a small improvement. The ps4k sounds like it has a significantly upgraded gpu, so we're likely to see significant differences in performance.

 

[GHG]

Not so sure about that. Games made for 8GB of ram can be very different from games made for 16GB of ram.
Battlefield 4, 64 players vs 24 players on last gen? Would you say it's huge gameplay different?

Having more of something that already exists is not innovation.

 

[Rymuth]

Love the smell of truth bomb in the morning. Great OP, Abdiel.

 

[...Scatter...]

Having more of something that already exists is not innovation.

Only in porn

 

[wapplew]

Having more of something that already exists is not innovation.

What about Wii sport? Or Warioware DS?
Keeping same from factor will kill those idea. We don't know about the future but we sure can't say now is good enough, just make it faster every 3 years.
That's asking for faster horse instead of a car. We don't want a car because fucking devs refuse to learn how to drive one.

 

[ThoughtsOfSpeaking]

I think it boils down to this.

The average Neogaffer who has been gaming all their life has a hard time accepting that the gaming market has fundementally and irrevocably changed.

Their main concerns are they have not got their "worth" out of their console before it is being replaced, and now with a iterative model there is every chance just as the first party Software gets going, a reset button will be pressed.

The problem is that they still consider a Console as a box to drive first party Software with third parties the sprinkles on top. This has not really been true since Gen 6. At best the roles have been reversed and arguably, this gen has proven that exclusive software doesnt really matter at all.

To be told that bothers these people, because they wonder why wont people just buy PCs. It ignores a fundemental reality :- Most consumers just like buying new devices. Apple have proved it, Sony proved it before them and the evidence is aĺl around :- There will always be people waiting to upgrade to premium models of anything.

Peoples worries that this will change games development are not unfounded, but what people are not taking into account is games development is changing anyway. Yes, Iterative consoles do harm single release, boxed products with minimal developer interaction post release outside of DLC.

But games like that generally are also going the way of the dodo, with frequently updated, software as a service games taking their place.

With iterative hardware, people do not need to wait for games like destiny to have a sequel to have a bump in graphical quailty, features or mecahnics. From the same base disc (or Download but thats another story) Developers have now got the abilty to factor upgrades in a games life.

An example of this is The Crew. One year into its life it got a significant graphical upgrade, the type you expect from a sequel. In that case it wasnt really enough to make the game successful, but that will be something that going forward will become a reality.

Back on the hardware front, improved hardware makes software features more likely and possible. Who remembers the lack of voice chat on PS3?. What if the often demanded folder system on the PS4 is due to a quirk in the OS which boils down to a limitation in RAM?

It might boil some peopls blood here but its possible that Sony might only be able to impliement folder support on updated hardware. As unlikely a scenario that is, it still does beggar the question of what Software features does Sony have in the pipeline and will refreshed hardware make them a reality.

If all this does bother you and makes you feel you need to jump out, then do it. Its ok, nothing is for everyone. But realise that things simple couldnt continue the way they were with a market declining and being eclisped by mobile more and more each year. The big 3 are fighting to stay relevant in a world where increasing amount of consumers didnt grow up with the same warm feelings of console gaming as you did and expect cutting edge hardware, not a box under the tv that lasts a decade.

 

[border]

iPhones? iPad? Computers?

The "Apple did it, so xxxxx company can do it too!" way of thinking has doomed or severely hobbled Sony platforms at least twice. I'm surprised people still endlessly cling to it.

Not every company is Apple. Not every company is selling a ubiquitous personal device that is near-mandatory for anyone living in the modern age. A console is not a smartphone, a computer, or even a tablet. It is a luxury entertainment device for a much smaller audience.

 

[ThoughtsOfSpeaking]

The "Apple did it, so xxxxx company can do it too!" way of thinking has doomed or severely hobbled Sony platforms at least twice. I'm surprised people still endlessly cling to it.

Not every company is Apple. Not every company is selling a ubiquitous personal device that is near-mandatory for anyone living in the modern age. A console is not a smartphone, a computer, or even a tablet. It is a luxury entertainment device for a much smaller audience.

Ok. Here is a easier one to wrap your head around.

Spoiler

Every other Sony product in existance.

I think sometimes people forget this is a consumer electronics company first and formost. You wouldnt worry about a new model of headphones, speaker, phone, TV etc coming along and eclisping yours because you know its going to happen (especially phones lol)

 

[Lionel Richie]

That's a very good OP man. I don't agree with most of it, but I respect your feelings and I'm sure you're know way more about this than I do. Personally, I think this isn't going to work, it's going to be a hard sell to both people who already bought the console and the crowd that buys a console later for being cheaper/having cheaper games. Consoles are not leading any technology, they are constantly underpowered when compared to PC, where the most significant advances are made more often. A console cycle doesn't hold back any technological advancements as I have read around here, they do happen at their own pace in PC as consoles lag behind.

In consoles, you don't worry about the performance, you get what's given to you. You don't have to worry about a lot of small things PC players go through in order to just play the game. Most of all, this confort is what really makes consoles seen so desirable. You're going to unbox it, it's not very expensive, you're going to plug it, download some updates (sadly) and then just play the game. That's it.

When you add the iterative hardware, essentially you break a big of that confort level. Not even thinking about the PS4K, but when it comes to the launch of the PS5 this could be divisive. Hell, it's divisive even around here. So a good part of your audience don't like it, some devs won't like it. New gamers in this new generation are going to see the NEO launching with PSVR for 800 bucks or so and go WTF AND they're going to know a new version of that PSVR is coming in like 2 years, around the time the PS5 would hit. This could get expensive, which would turn it into a niche market, which is the opposite of the mobile market (as if it wasn't opposite enough). And it's unrealistic to believe all of the 40 million people who bought the PS4 are going to be ok with it and buy future Sony consoles (not even saying PS4K because it seems they wouldn't need to upgrade, although I highly doubt it we're not going to see some badly optimised games for the older hardware). Hey, if it's an overpriced proprietary PC, why not just go PC?

tl;dr: this is risky, it could payoff big time or it could crash the market. I don't pretend I have any insider knowledge and my logic could be wrong in all sorts of places. I respect anyone who thinks otherwise, but I think this one will bust. I hope it doesn't though, buying a new console is one of my favorite things.

 

[kyser73]

Iterative hardware is not a new concept. Nintendo already does this with their handhelds, 3ds and new 3ds being the most recent example.

My fear is that games developed for ps4k are not going to run well at all on ps4, thus making people feel forced to upgrade. It could leave a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths. With phones, tv's, laptops, etc., you don't really get that same push to upgrade because each iteration is such a small improvement. The ps4k sounds like it has a significantly upgraded gpu, so we're likely to see significant differences in performance.

So you've either not seen or have chosen to ignore the section of the GB leak where it states devs target the OG PS4 and include a Neo mode and are expressly forbidden from developing Neo-only features?

 

[wapplew]

I think it boils down to this.

The average Neogaffer who has been gaming all their life has a hard time accepting that the gaming market has fundementally and irrevocably changed.

Their main concerns are they have not got their "worth" out of their console before it is being replaced, and now with a iterative model there is every chance just as the first party Software gets going, a reset button will be pressed.

The problem is that they still consider a Console as a box to drive first party Software with third parties the sprinkles on top. This has not really been true since Gen 6. At best the roles have been reversed and arguably, this gen has proven that exclusive software doesnt really matter at all.

To be told that bothers these people, because they wonder why wont people just buy PCs. It ignores a fundemental reality :- Most consumers just like buying new devices. Apple have proved it, Sony proved it before them and the evidence is aĺl around :- There will always be people waiting to upgrade to premium models of anything.

Peoples worries that this will change games development are not unfounded, but what people are not taking into account is games development is changing anyway. Yes, Iterative consoles do harm single release, boxed products with minimal developer interaction post release outside of DLC.

But games like that generally are also going the way of the dodo, with frequently updated, software as a service games taking their place.

With iterative hardware, people do not need to wait for games like destiny to have a sequel to have a bump in graphical quailty, features or mecahnics. From the same base disc (or Download but thats another story) Developers have now got the abilty to factor upgrades in a games life.

An example of this is The Crew. One year into its life it got a significant graphical upgrade, the type you expect from a sequel. In that case it wasnt really enough to make the game successful, but that will be something that going forward will become a reality.

Back on the hardware front, improved hardware makes software features more likely and possible. Who remembers the lack of voice chat on PS3?. What if the often demanded folder system on the PS4 is due to a quirk in the OS which boils down to a limitation in RAM?

It might boil some peopls blood here but its possible that Sony might only be able to impliement folder support on updated hardware. As unlikely a scenario that is, it still does beggar the question of what Software features does Sony have in the pipeline and will refreshed hardware make them a reality.

If all this does bother you and makes you feel you need to jump out, then do it. Its ok, nothing is for everyone. But realise that things simple couldnt continue the way they were with a market declining and being eclisped by mobile more and more each year. The big 3 are fighting to stay relevant in a world where increasing amount of consumers didnt grow up with the same warm feelings of console gaming as you did and expect cutting edge hardware, not a box under the tv that lasts a decade.

It's hard to take in but good points.
Like you said, the market declining and we all know console future is not very bright, but do you really think going after iOS/PC model will change it's fate?
Is releasing new and shinny more frequently helps the growth of console (or stop the decline) overall? Is it really the way to make consumers grow up with ipad jump into console? It might be just the same few millions core users who buy that hardware twice, making more dollars per users instead of growing the business.

I don't know there is a solution, but I think adapting this model only make it die faster.

 

[MilkyJoe]

Parents are going to be confused as fuck.

Where does this thought process come from?

When you have a child do you get a free lobotomy?

 

[Relique]

I think most people never argued that it won't sell. There are plenty of people with money to blow. I don't think it will sell as fast the PS4 has so far, but I bet it will be successful enough. My problem is that I don't think it's a good idea. We are already seeing every other PS4 game have issues. Most issues are minor like frame pacing in From Software titles or worst case scenario you get a near unplayable game like Just Cause 3. I am barely confident in getting a smooth playing console game now when there is only one Sony console to worry about. When devs have to optimize for two consoles (this isn't counting the upcoming NX and XBone revision) then I think we will see even more games running poorly on the old hardware.

The answer, people will say, is to just upgrade... and I can do that, but then I question why I should? So far I am a bit dissatisfied with the exclusives output on PS4, so it's difficult for me to justify another console.

I also question what this console is for exactly. It's a 4K console that won't play 4K games. It is held back by the fact that any games on it will need to run on PS4 at about 1080p and 30fps give or take. So we know the hardware won't be used to it's most potential, particularly by the first party studios who I am buying these consoles for.

So all this console is doing is upscaling and letting me play PS4 games a bit smoother. If I just want to play mostly third party games at better framerates, maybe spending 1000 every few years on a PC, is smarter than spending 800 in the same period on two consoles? You lose a few perks by going this route but you gain some as well. To me it comes down to a few console exclusives vs. smoother overall gameplay, lower overall prices, guaranteed backwards comptability, pc exclusives, convenience of easier text chat, easier access to video and text guides, easier upgrades.. and the list goes on.

If I could only afford one route, the decision would be harder if the game output on PS4 was better. But as it stands I feel it's not worth it. People need to realize that not everyone is made of money. For many of us a purchase like this is significant, and I don't think this thing is doing enough to justify the buy in price right now. It's not utilizing any of it's tech to push the medium forward. If the PS4K came out today, I feel like the PS4 and PS4K will just hold each other back, all for a few sales that aren't particularly profitable.

I would have preferred to just have a shorter console cycle instead. Let the PS4 be for another 2 years, ramp up the game output, and come out swinging in 2018 with a new console. When the PS4 came out at least the GPU in it was competitive with what's in the market, now we are looking at a GPU that is close to a 380x that not only will be underutilized, but will likely around the time HBM Polaris and and Pascal cards will hit the market.

 

[ThoughtsOfSpeaking]

I think most people never argued that it won't sell. There are plenty of people with money to blow. I don't think it will sell as fast the PS4 has so far, but I bet it will be successful enough. My problem is that I don't think it's a good idea. We are already seeing every other PS4 game have issues. Most issues are minor like frame pacing in From Software titles or worst case scenario you get a near unplayable game like Just Cause 3.

The framepacing issues in FROM game is a quirk of their engine and exists even in PC versions.

Just cause 3 is a game badly optimized on all platforms, including PC.

 

[kaching]

Secondly, there is no way that instead of a true next generation release, e.g. the PS5, we simply get continuous iterational releases that are still further held back by not only the PS4K, but also the PS4. The entire point of a generational leap is that you can truly expand on new technologies, features, graphics and tech, which being tied down to older hardware absolutely nullifies and prevents. Cross gen games (e.g. PS3/PS4, or 360/XO) generally suffer and pale in comparison to next gen only games, and what you're suggesting is essentially a perpetual cycle of cross gen releases, by virtue of continuous iterative hardware releases, that would not only stifle technological and graphical progress, but also hamper gameplay design through limiting potential in constantly being held back by older hardware.

Yeah, the latest consoles sure are doing a good job of not being tied down to older tech, say like that x86 CPU architecture that's decades old, or those gamepads that have barely changed in at least 3 generations now... But that's okay because when you mention hampered gameplay I find myself thinking of how many games today still seem so hampered gameplay-wise compared to some of the games I used to play on a 386 machine with 640k of memory...

Technology is inherently iterative. What you call a generational leap is just not bothering to be interested in the iterations in between that got you there.

 

[supernormal]

It's just bad as a long term strategy. You are poisoning the well with your userbase, which is a terrible idea for a product line that essentially has a complete reset every 5-7 years.

Why should I buy a Playstation 5 if I suspect that Sony will just release a better model a couple years down the line? These incremental upgrades will prevent early adopters from signing on, and thus prevent/slow the userbase from reaching the critical mass necessary to support AAA development.

This already happens. Why would you buy a PS4 (any console) at launch when you know that down the line you will be able to get a better model with more features for probably cheaper (slim refresh). Why would you buy any game at launch when you know down the line you can buy it with all the add-ons and DLC for half the price.

I see this more as a glorified slim model than anything else. Even if it was actually the PS5, it doesn't nullify all the experiences I've had with my PS4 since launch. If you are one the people that only bought a PS4 very recently, then apply the same logic to the new model and get it later on when you feel it has a better value for you.

The only thing that I feel might be a problem with these upgrades going forward is that it doesn't really match with development time of modern games.There's many franchises that I expected to play on the PS4 down the line (GTAVI, FFVIIR, TLOU2, GOW4, GT7) that will ultimately come out after there is a newer console on the market. The problem with these games is that you expect them to be best use of the hardware available at the end of the gen, and in this case they will be stuck in some limbo between not fully utilizing the PS4k and catering to the regular PS4.

 

[roytheone]

As someone that is only interested in buying a ps4 for a handful of exclusives, I wonder if the base model will become cheaper to buy after the ps4k launches.

 

[aeroslash]

I see mainly two problems:

First, the US market is not the same as the rest of the world. I'm a guy who like high tech and who works in a high earning money enviroment, and i still have not seen anyone around me who changes his phone every year just for the sake of it. So iterations, specially in Europe may have some problems. Because let's face it, the difference in graphics will be minor in any case.

Second, the developers. The good thing about consoles vs computers is that they have been always a closed system, that's why you could see the best games in terms of technology or graphics in the end of the generarion. Developers had 4-6 years to learn, try and improve their tech on a fixed hardware. Do you really think they would be able or willing to do that when they know that mid generation a new iteration will come? They just won't care to optimize things as much as they do now. You can see that on pc, most of the games on the minimum specs, just run, and that's about it. Developers, according to latest news, have started to rise his voice saying that this is not a good idea, and i'm sorry, but i think that they know the market a lot lot better than us.

That of course it's just my percepction, but i just can't see who can be interested in what the ps4k will offer if even in a Geek forums like this one most of the people don't like the idea.

 

[mrklaw]

Agreed OP. Also, if the higher priced consoles allow the core consoles to drop in price, that'll still being in more customers, right? They won't be out off by the high priced one thinking the core is rubbish - they'll be attracted to the core because it hits a price point they are comfortable with. In fact the existence of a higher priced one that 'plays the same games' may make the lower priced one even more of an attractive option because it could increase the perceived value

 

[Inuhanyou]

So you've either not seen or have chosen to ignore the section of the GB leak where it states devs target the OG PS4 and include a Neo mode and are expressly forbidden from developing Neo-only features?

Most naysayers unfortunately just ignore that and say its GOING to happen even if Sony says otherwise, which doesnt make sense to me.

The PS4K is not supposed to be a unit that introduces a new development standard. That would be impossible with PS4 on the market to begin with and always having to conform to PS4.

By the time the PS4K got to the PS4's userbase or surpassed it, the next round would already be in line.

Second, the developers. The good thing about consoles vs computers is that they have been always a closed system, that's why you could see the best games in terms of technology or graphics in the end of the generarion. Developers had 4-6 years to learn, try and improve their tech on a fixed hardware. Do you really think they would be able or willing to do that when they know that mid generation a new iteration will come? They just won't care to optimize things as much as they do now.
.

There is still fixed hardware in this case, the PS4. The PS4K is just an up porting machine. You take your PS4 code, you slap it on PS4K and add different IQ or performance enhancements. Or you can just leave it how it is. I don't see how that is something to be feared.

 

[mrklaw]

I don't like or dislike the removal of the big generational jump and hitting the reset button every 6 years, it's just different. But at least now if you're thinking of buying a PlayStation or Xbox and there are rumblings of a new one coming out in a year or so, you don't need to be as worried that your purchase is obsoleted quickly - you'll likely get at least three years out of it, probably more until at least two more machines are released.

And I see it as an absolute positive for publishers as it smooths out the bumps, and anything that can improve future planning adds confidence. Look at how many publishers were holding back on PS4 because they weren't sure it'd fly, and are now hastily catching up. A smoother generational transition through contestant iterations removes a lot of that guesswork and risk.

 

[The God]

So you've either not seen or have chosen to ignore the section of the GB leak where it states devs target the OG PS4 and include a Neo mode and are expressly forbidden from developing Neo-only features?

Performance is not a feature

 

[Inuhanyou]

Performance is not a feature

Its a feature for this unit. Its a glorified slim revision with updated HDMI 2.0 outputs and some upclocked HW with the added benefit of more GPU power, let's not get crazy folks.

 

[The God]

Its a feature for this unit. Its a glorified slim revision with updated HDMI 2.0 outputs and some upclocked HW with the added benefit of more GPU power, let's not get crazy folks.

But nowhere in the GB leak does it say "PS4 games are not allowed to run like ass in comparison to Neo games". That's what Goldenmoney's concern is.

 

[virtualS]

Yep.

 

[PensivePen]

But nowhere in the GB leak does it say "PS4 games are not allowed to run like ass in comparison to Neo games". That's what Goldenmoney's concern is.

There's nothing to prevent PS4 games from running like ass regardless of whether or not there's a second model available. Like always some developers/publishers will put more effort into performance than others.

 

[Atomski]

There's nothing to prevent PS4 games from running like ass regardless of whether or not there's a second model available. Like always some developers/publishers will put more effort into performance than others.

Yep the only thing that will change is you will need to make sure reviews and such you read pertain to the version you are buying. Which will probably be annoying..

 

[The God]

There's nothing to prevent PS4 games from running like ass regardless of whether or not there's a second model available. Like always some developers/publishers will put more effort into performance than others.

The fear is that the PS4 version gets less attention due to devs focusing more on the new consoles.

And this is the part where you say something like, "why would devs shaft 40 million PS4 owners like that?"

talking in circles

 

[dose]

you're not seeing a split user-base.

And that's where we disagree.

 

[Footos22]

It's just bad as a long term strategy. You are poisoning the well with your userbase, which is a terrible idea for a product line that essentially has a complete reset every 5-7 years.

Why should I buy a Playstation 5 if I suspect that Sony will just release a better model a couple years down the line? These incremental upgrades will prevent early adopters from signing on, and thus prevent/slow the userbase from reaching the critical mass necessary to support AAA development.

Why should I get a new phone every 2-3 years if I know 6 months later they'll be a better one. Is no different.

 

[border]

I think sometimes people forget this is a consumer electronics company first and formost. You wouldnt worry about a new model of headphones, speaker, phone, TV etc coming along and eclisping yours because you know its going to happen (especially phones lol)

Why should I get a new phone every 2-3 years if I know 6 months later they'll be a better one. Is no different.

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. 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.

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.

This already happens. Why would you buy a PS4 (any console) at launch when you know that down the line you will be able to get a better model with more features for probably cheaper (slim refresh). Why would you buy any game at launch when you know down the line you can buy it with all the add-ons and DLC for half the price.

Features added in a refresh are far less tangible and valuable than those added in a PS4K, though. Waiting 2-3 years for a slimmer model PS4 doesn't make a lot of sense to most people, whereas waiting years for a more powerful one does......especially if the incremental model encourages 3 or more years of cross-platform titles between generations.

 

[wapplew]

Why should I get a new phone every 2-3 years if I know 6 months later they'll be a better one. Is no different.

A lot of reason to get a new phone even they release something better down the line.
1. We used to it. It's been that way since the birth of mobile phone industry.
2. Phone give you much more incentive to upgrade. Performance is only one of them, screen, size, weight, camera, design, special feature like NFC or finger print etc, anyone of those could trigger you to upgrade.
3. Subsidize.

Reason we get an upgraded console
1. Play the enhance version of same game.
2. Exclusive games that we can't have unless we upgrade

 

[DerZuhälter]

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?

 

[TylerDurden4321]

I appreciate OP's retail perspective, but everything I've heard so far is pointing to Sony doing this to be able to keep charging $400 for the Playstation. I don't know about profit margins on 200-300 USD old-tech items they have to keep in production, a possible shrinked new-tech 250USD version and how they compare to a new $400 model, but what I've read so far points to Sony thinking $400 and better hardware will sell more than a lower priced original.

Which is why I don't think they'll keep the original PS4 in production when the PS Neo hits shelves. A cheap and slim version of the original PS4 might be in the making to have something for the ~230USD customers, but we don't know anything about it so far.

Meaning, so far we should not assume that consumers will have the choice between the cheap low-spec and the "spend more, get more" version, like they do with phones. This is not taking into consideration that some retailers will sell used/refurb versions, but those might be short in supply with a limited number of produced and resold/traded-in units.

Another thing about a possible slim version for the low-price market: Everyone is going to 14nm processes now and companies are fighting for dates to get their stuff produced, meaning that the NEO would probably be out a lot sooner than the original slim version.

 

[mnz]

You're basing a lot of things off of your assumption that the PS4K is not also actually cheaper to produce than the current PS4. What if it doesn't make financial sense for Sony to keep the old model around?

.

Similar point, but with much better articulation!

I would also add that Sony, as a hardware manufacturer (TVs/BD) and media producer (Sony Pictures) and distributor (Vue/Ultra) outside of Playstation, desperately wants more 4K-enabled devices out there.

 

[kyser73]

Performance is not a feature

Yeah, it is.

Look, if a dev is going to write a game that has shit code, pushes the console too hard or some wild combination of both, it'll still be ass on the Neo - just less ass.

 

[family_guy]

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. Console purchases can be put off indefinitely in most cases.

Doesn't change the fact that people upgrade their phones and TVs without it being a necessity. I had a Galaxy Note 3. The next year I bought a Note 4. There was nothing wrong with my Note 3. I just wanted something newer. My living room TV is 4 years old and it's 1080p. It cost me 2k. I don't need a new TV, but guess what I'm replacing it with a 4k one this year. The idea that people only buy things out of need is ridiculous. You don't need any of these things. You want them. You could buy a dumb phone and read books for entertainment.

 

[nynt9]

Parents are going to be confused as fuck.

They really aren't. "I want a PS4. Why is this one so much cheaper? Oh it plays all the same games but the other one looks nicer?" Then, depending on their budget, "I'll buy the cheap one." Or "I'll buy the pretty one"

We live in a day where people have learned to follow incremental updates thanks to iPhones. My dad can tell me all the spec differences between the different iPhone versions, and my mom knows which models are better too. Times change.

 

[tzare]

They really aren't. "I want a PS4. Why is this one so much cheaper? Oh it plays all the same games but the other one looks nicer?" Then, depending on their budget, "I'll buy the cheap one." Or "I'll buy the pretty one"

We live in a day where people have learned to follow incremental updates thanks to iPhones. My dad can tell me all the spec differences between the different iPhone versions, and my mom knows which models are better too. Times change.

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.

 

[border]

Doesn't change the fact that people upgrade their phones and TVs without it being a necessity. I had a Galaxy Note 3. The next year I bought a Note 4. There was nothing wrong with my Note 3. I just wanted something newer. My living room TV is 4 years old and it's 1080p. It cost me 2k. I don't need a new TV, but guess what I'm replacing it with a 4k one this year. The idea that people only buy things out of need is ridiculous. You don't need any of these things. You want them. You could buy a dumb phone and read books for entertainment.

I feel like I've already fairly laid out why the console market is not subject to the same forces and consumer impulses as the cell phone market (subsidies, and the idea that the smartphone is an essential accessory for modern day life).

Need/necessity works on a relative scale here though. You don't need a smartphone in the same way you need food. But at the same time, you don't need a console in the same way you need a smartphone or a computer. Somebody trying to operate in modern society with a landline or a dumbphone is at a much bigger disadvantage than someone who is content just to play last-generation games on their old console. Upgrading a phone is a much easier call because it's an essential part of your life that you can't go without.

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.

 

[Elandyll]

Parents are going to be confused as fuck.

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).

 

[Zaki2407]

Nice write up OP. I may not be able to buy one on launch day, but I will buy it eventually.

 

[Fafalada]

Because for consoles I could reasonably assume getting the best possible performance for 5+ years?

You're assuming here you'll get performance improvements from iterations. This isn't (currently) being positioned anything like the PC.