If there isn't one then no point of the console being released. It isn't going to be touted as a ps4 replacement but a 4k device.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Case for the PS4K: an important, and necessary, change for the industry.
- Thread starter chubigans
- Start date
But everyone in this thread is also basically doing the same thing
Which is still ridiculously silly, right? Am I the only one to see that?
potatohead
Member
People upgrade so much because they pay massive prices on phone contracts that allow them to upgrade every year almost. Because they pay more than the value of the phone 1.5x or 2x over while paying for the contract each year.
It's much harder to perceive value to others than you are making it out to be.
The product hasn't been announced, and that's likely to be a big, splashy piece of the story. It's also not something Sony has to disclose to developers which is where we've gotten most of our information. Game disks can't be UHD or they won't be usable on PS4 (unless Sony has still more surprises up their sleeves, but unlike Jeff Rigby I'm not betting on it.)
mitchman
Gold Member
Especially since a UHD BD drive requires very little additional technology compared to regular BD. Same laser is used and it just needs to be able to read another 2 layers which has been trivial the last 3 years and existing BD production facilities can be used for UHD BDs.
Some (Jeff Rigby mostly) even claim the original PS4 BD player can be updated to UHD BD with a firmware upgrade as it's already new enough to possibly support the hardware required for the extra layers.
I mean many of us can see the potential pros to this....but many also just see the negative and only negative.
But that doesnt mean we have to upgrade phones because of those features...if it can talk and text with no problem. Now if you use the internet, GPS, play games, use the camera alot, listen to music, etc....thats another story. And gets lumped in with Neo enhancements.
Primary function of a phone.
Primary function of a game console.
One doesnt become shit when a newer version comes out. Now if PS4's are out there running like shit..... But hey....MS already knows about this with the RRoD issues last gen. We already had to deal with this last gen...it just wasnt an upgrade to better cpu/gpu specs...it was an upgrade to fix bad hardware design.
So...high end phones run like shit after a year and a half, 2 years? If so ...I would question that particular OEM, phone model vs. phones in general. Remember PS4 is the only PS4 model right now until the Neo comes out...then Neo becomes higher end PS4.
Sometimes you can find out whats eating battery life and causing lag. Sometimes all it takes is a factory reset or reboot. Then ...no need to upgrade....
I'm just saying...
On the matter of the phone comparison, I'm going to echo many others in this thread to say that it's an apples and oranges comparison. As others have said before, the scaling with different iterations of phones is more to do with customisability than power, as the base function of a phone is calls and texts where you have your cheap flip phones; then inter-connectivity with the variety of communication apps; general use with regards to google maps, internet functionality, news reports beamed to your phone, emails constantly available, ability to use online banking and pay for things with your phone - for which you may want a phone with better security; and at the high end we have cameras of increasing strength and potential waterproofing for the phone, as well as general power increases with each iteration so the power of phones increases with time so the apps can become more sophisticated and run faster. This wide variety of aims and thus options is why the market works with such a number of types of phone, as people are either on constant upgrade plans (where they also get bucket loads of data, minutes and texts - usually infinite), or they keep to their own cycle, staying a few iterations behind the current model to lower the cost, and upgrading every few years. The console comparison is very different, as having different models which can run different apps, or blu ray compared to 4K, fits the phone model of working around the non essential parts. But what a console is at its heart, is a games machine. Thus, adaptability of the console's capability to do what is it's main draw, is very different to the multi-purposeness of phones. This is why the comparison cannot be made without taking care and explaining precisely why such a comparison should be valid, it's akin to having phones where one phone is specifically cheaper because it gets a much weaker signal, which doesn't exist in the market at all, to my knowledge.
On the matter of scaleability, the one issue I can potentially see is one of stagnation. In my mind that's not due to tethering yourself to a particular type of architecture, but is due to forcing backwards compatibility. Neo games can take advantage of the extra power of the Neo, but not fully as anything running on it also has to run on the base model. Thus I'm imagining that it'll result largely in a smoother experience, which is nice and all, but seems like an attempt to sell another box for the hell of it. You won't get any Xenoblade Chronicles 3D like games, which can only run on the stronger model, but instead may even get Hyrule Warriors Legends type game, which run noticeably worse on the original model. And this is where I think the PC argument falls apart somewhat, PC games do have that scaleability, but there is also a base requirement needed, recommended specifications to run the game. If that model is taken up, then you get games running terribly on the base PS4, and if it isn't, then you get Neo games tethered to the weaker console and doomed to be prettier and faster, but with no substantial improvement.
Of course, my PC game is noticeably weak compared to my console games (which is more of a handheld game, but I digress) so I may be assuming too much here, but I do feel like there's an importance on the minimum power of your machine, before the scaleability with regards to speed and graphical effects comes into play. You can then argue just for the extra speed and increased graphical effects being the reason for the Neo, but I feel like it's ill suited for consoles simply because that's not what people want, because then they'd be playing on a high end PC, many of the multiplayer games people tend to play nowadays come out on PC, as well as a lot if not most of the single player ones. In other words, you get the risk of the base model being shafted and running poorly, for very little rewards as I think the market for extra power is tiny in the console department - consider the sales of the N3DS compared to the original 3DS, especially with the cheaper price of upgrading. Note, should a two tier system be established, with say a PS5 coming after the Neo which drops original PS4 support, then I feel like that might be able to work, as essentially staggered generations, though I'm still wary that it'd be shackled to the original PS4 as the PS5 would be shackled to the Neo which would have been shackled to the original PS4.
Back to the note of stagnation. I feel like with iterational improvements, you'll get much less innovation in the industry, as the hardware is forced to allow backwards compatibility with the previous hardware. I wouldn't be able to see innovations in motion control and dual screens occuring with that restriction in place.
On the topic of necessity. I'm not a developer, and have a very limited understanding of code, so this is largely deductive so do call me out on whether or not it's very very wrong. I've read in here that the noticeable advantage of iterational consoles is the lack of wasted code and development tools. I'm wondering on how that worked with the Gamecube - Wii - Wii U. Each generation included an innovation, or gimmick if you prefer, but was also largely built upon the previous console. I wonder if this shows that we can have the architecture of the console remain largely the same generation to generation, but still allow for either large improvements in computational ability by not being shackled to the previous iteration, or allowing an innovation by not being shackled to the previous iteration?
TLDR;
a) Is the Neo really necessary for developers, or is it possible to have consoles built upon each other but still maintain generations, thus allow extra power to be used to its full potential?
b) Comparisons to phones do not work without much thought, as phones are an entirely different device where every user what's something different from the phone, and phones are a much larger market thus can sustain many different models at a time, and generational improvements in hardware (the kind that lock away backwards compatibility) aren't necessary for phones to flourish.
c) i) The extra power just results in a faster device or greater eye-candy due to being shackled to the previous iteration, killing improvements in game design. (ii) The extra power results in games being released that run noticeably poorly on the PS4, effectively cutting the lifetime of the original PS4 short.
On the matter of scaleability, the one issue I can potentially see is one of stagnation. In my mind that's not due to tethering yourself to a particular type of architecture, but is due to forcing backwards compatibility. Neo games can take advantage of the extra power of the Neo, but not fully as anything running on it also has to run on the base model. Thus I'm imagining that it'll result largely in a smoother experience, which is nice and all, but seems like an attempt to sell another box for the hell of it. You won't get any Xenoblade Chronicles 3D like games, which can only run on the stronger model, but instead may even get Hyrule Warriors Legends type game, which run noticeably worse on the original model. And this is where I think the PC argument falls apart somewhat, PC games do have that scaleability, but there is also a base requirement needed, recommended specifications to run the game. If that model is taken up, then you get games running terribly on the base PS4, and if it isn't, then you get Neo games tethered to the weaker console and doomed to be prettier and faster, but with no substantial improvement.
Of course, my PC game is noticeably weak compared to my console games (which is more of a handheld game, but I digress) so I may be assuming too much here, but I do feel like there's an importance on the minimum power of your machine, before the scaleability with regards to speed and graphical effects comes into play. You can then argue just for the extra speed and increased graphical effects being the reason for the Neo, but I feel like it's ill suited for consoles simply because that's not what people want, because then they'd be playing on a high end PC, many of the multiplayer games people tend to play nowadays come out on PC, as well as a lot if not most of the single player ones. In other words, you get the risk of the base model being shafted and running poorly, for very little rewards as I think the market for extra power is tiny in the console department - consider the sales of the N3DS compared to the original 3DS, especially with the cheaper price of upgrading. Note, should a two tier system be established, with say a PS5 coming after the Neo which drops original PS4 support, then I feel like that might be able to work, as essentially staggered generations, though I'm still wary that it'd be shackled to the original PS4 as the PS5 would be shackled to the Neo which would have been shackled to the original PS4.
Back to the note of stagnation. I feel like with iterational improvements, you'll get much less innovation in the industry, as the hardware is forced to allow backwards compatibility with the previous hardware. I wouldn't be able to see innovations in motion control and dual screens occuring with that restriction in place.
On the topic of necessity. I'm not a developer, and have a very limited understanding of code, so this is largely deductive so do call me out on whether or not it's very very wrong. I've read in here that the noticeable advantage of iterational consoles is the lack of wasted code and development tools. I'm wondering on how that worked with the Gamecube - Wii - Wii U. Each generation included an innovation, or gimmick if you prefer, but was also largely built upon the previous console. I wonder if this shows that we can have the architecture of the console remain largely the same generation to generation, but still allow for either large improvements in computational ability by not being shackled to the previous iteration, or allowing an innovation by not being shackled to the previous iteration?
TLDR;
a) Is the Neo really necessary for developers, or is it possible to have consoles built upon each other but still maintain generations, thus allow extra power to be used to its full potential?
b) Comparisons to phones do not work without much thought, as phones are an entirely different device where every user what's something different from the phone, and phones are a much larger market thus can sustain many different models at a time, and generational improvements in hardware (the kind that lock away backwards compatibility) aren't necessary for phones to flourish.
c) i) The extra power just results in a faster device or greater eye-candy due to being shackled to the previous iteration, killing improvements in game design. (ii) The extra power results in games being released that run noticeably poorly on the PS4, effectively cutting the lifetime of the original PS4 short.
mitchman
Gold Member
This is speculation presented as fact. Do you have any kind of historical evidence to support this theory?
dragonelite
Member
As long as it had backward compatibility im all for it for a half gen improved sku.
Funny thing. Main reason people upgrade their smart phone is due to upgraded hardware part + ability to run newer app smoother. Not that much different from console.
Your sample of any phone can make phone call doesn't make any sense. If that's the case then there is absolutely no reason for people to upgrade their phone. Even in a decade.
wapplew
Member
I doubt many upgrade from iPhone 5 to iPhone 6 because they want their app run smoother, bigger screen size maybe, but smoother app is not be top priority.
It might be true or people with old ass phone.
Well reasoned and highly logical.
I doubt the main reason people upgrade smartphones "is due to upgraded hardware part + ability to run newer app smoother.".
The main reason I see people upgrading smartphones is to show off (to many people it is a symbol of status), because the battery isn't holding charge anymore or because the display broke and the replacement is almost half of a new one.
Being able to use the latest app is probably the least common reason to upgrade.
David Ricardo
Member
The purpose of PS4Neo is offering a premium PS4. You want to pay less and play worse, buy og PS4. You want to pay more and play better versions of PS4 games, buy PS4Neo. Also, I expect some VR games to be Neo exclusive. No Man's Sky, for example. Also, Robinson: the journey doesn't look like it's going to be possible in og PS4 VR.
I don't know when PS5 is going to arrive. Nor do I know what specs it will have. But if it's some kind of generational leap in performance from PS4, it's gonna be much tougher for the PS4 Neo to run PS5 games thant it is for og PS4 to run PS4 Neo games.
PS4 Neo is basically a supercharged PS4. Same amount of slightly faster RAM, same but faster CPU and a more than twice as powerful GPU.
Think of it as a PS3 with 768 GB RAM and a 450 gigaflops GPU released in 2009. It's a great improvement compared to OG PS3, it would run games much better, but it's very far from being able to run PS4 games. That's what PS4 Neo is. Premium PS4. It lives and dies with the PS4.
Off course I may be overestimaring what PS5 might be. But many things can happen in 3-4 years of technology improvements. Who knows what will be possible to be sold for 400-500 in 2020?
So why cant ppl do that with the Neo? I would hope the PS4 would be cheaper than the Neo.
About the multi purposeness of a phone...that came about because of features added over time. Take away the features of every smartphone..including texting...and you can still use it to talk. Feature get added to a new model, take it away its still the old model.
Take away the Neo enhancements and you have the PS4. Neo enhanced games will still run on PS4, you just wont see the enhancements.
Thats all I'm getting at.
The n3DS comparisons might be worse than phones because they were console games ported to handhelds. And the 3DS had very, very old tech to begin with.
About yearly phone upgrades....and I see this alot on phone forums...most only thinks about themselves...and not about others who either:
Are in the market for a new phone because they had theirs for some years.
Or are still on regular cellphones and it will be their first smartphone.
...Arent there ppl still playing on Wii, PS3, 360 only right now.....
?
If I was still playing on last gen only....I would be especially ecstatic about news of the Neo. So IMO these are the ppl Sony are trying to get:
Early adopters that always want the latest n greatest.
Those still on last gen only.
Will all this have a negative effect due to day 1 PS4 buyers feeling buyers remorse, PS4 buyers that just got one before this leak dropped and feeling buyers remorse, ppl that will get a NEO as their first current gen console and they worry about whats next after the Neo...only time will tell.
You never spelled this out anywhere else to my knowledge. Don't act as if everyone reads all of GAF every day.
Anywho, I don't agree with you, especially since it seems to be based on whatever a generational leap is and I don't think Spencer used those exact words, but I'll leave it alone since you clearly don't want to discuss it. laters
CosmicQueso
Member
The UHD blu ray drive will be included via a firmware update.
I know this is over-simplifying things, but I think much of it comes down to the inferiority complex people will have knowing that others are playing on more powerful hardware within their preferred ecosystem. It's commonplace in just about any other type consumer space (phones, tablets, PCs, cars, etc.), but it's a relatively new concept for consoles. I'm not really worried, as long as the quality of said content is still good.
lazer_bean
Member
No, they should hold back on it and use it as a new feature for PSNeo 2 in 2017-2018.
Gotdatmoney
Member
The main reason people upgrade their phones is because they buy on contracts that offer the phone subsidized over the length of said contract. $500-$1000 phones arent just being outright bought. The vast bulk of people do not have money to drop that upfront on a phone.
The improvement in functionality is a bonus but the bulk of people are not upgrading on that basis alone. The landscape would be way different if you had to outright buy your phone every 2-3 years.
Thank you. I don't see how people can compare this to the console business unless Sony / Microsoft start offerring such deals to "upgrade".
potatohead
Member
And subscription fees for $50 to $80 to $100 per month.
When people pay $1200 a year for a phone contract of course those companies are going to give them a phone every year. They paid for it 3 times over!
Its not, because as someone else has said, this console is a revision of a PS4. Its locked to PS4 implicitly, using marginally upgraded PS4 parts, and so you are playing PS4 games better. There is no real obligation to lock PS5 games to this stop gap unit.
Sony are going for the Iphone model and doing something different for a change.
Now PS4 games enhanced with PS4K and PS5 being fully BC with PS4 means a consistent library.
Not necessarily. Take the multipliers out. Your still going from 4tflops to 16tflops which is a HUGE amount of rendering power that is capable of doing things 4tflops can't. That's especially so if you factor in added CPU power of Zen, added bandwidth and RAM of HBM.
boredandlazy
Member
Of course! Why didn't I think of that...
For ci), no. That is speculation, but I feel it's warranted. The argument is that by being linked to the previous iteration, each console is therefore loosely linked to the original PS4. Shifts in technology akin to drastically changing the controller would require the loss of backwards compatibility, which is what the argument hinges on.
For cii), yes, Hyrule Warriors Legends, is evidence for a game running poorly on the original console but being sold on both. The latter half of that argument is conjecture, taking the trend and saying that there is a possibility that it could occur if the Neo sells extremely well, after all some cross-gen games performed poorly on the previous gen despite those having a higher install base.
People can, but then my other arguments come into play. You mentioned taking away the Neo enhancements - if there's no noticeable difference to the game, then you can argue that the enhancements are therefore superficial so the console is being held back. And if there is a noticeable difference (i.e the base version performing poorly) then that's an issue in itself.
It's a better comparison because they're both consoles, with a primary function of playing games. It's not perfect (no comparison is), as handhelds are less expensive than home consoles, so you could argue that it's easier for customers to stomach constantly upgrading, like the DS line.
I'm approaching this from a purely logical angle, looking at the effect it could have on gaming as a whole, my opinion isn't based on feelings of betrayal or unfairness, after all I don't have a PS4, so would probably go for the Neo as it's clearly a better deal. When I initially heard about it my first impressions were somewhat negative as the idea of iterative consoles didn't appeal to me, but I looked at it logically and saw no issues - except parity. The lack of Neo exclusive games is the issue to me, because I think about Xenoblade Chronicles on the N3DS, and how it wouldn't exist if this parity rule existed, assuming that the game cannot run on the original 3DS which is why it was N3DS exclusive. Considering the PC model as being able to adjust settings and hence spend less for the same overall experience, just something looking less sharp etc. is actually appealing, as it'd drive down costs and make owning multiple consoles more feasible, I think. And I do think that it'd have a negative effect on PS4 early adopters (though I don't think I'd call someone who bought the console in the last year or so an early adopter at all, it was released in late 2013), which would be reflected in initial sales of the PS5, should it come to pass.
Closing remarks: I mainly looked at the negative effects of the PS4 Neo in my earlier post, as I felt that the positive effects were covered, and wanted to challenge some arguments I disagreed with. Just clarifying my personal stance; as detailed above, I like the idea of having a stronger console option, just think that exclusives should be able to be produced for it. My argument about big technological shifts being disallowed may be alleviated by that, as it'd enable a console to buck the trend and perhaps have motion controls (as an example, if they did not exist on the console before) as an add on option much like PSVR is. I'd be grateful for anyone knowledgeable about PCs fact checking as to whether the more PC like architecture (as has been said previously) of this generations consoles allows for that.
Gotdatmoney
Member
And subscription fees for $50 to $80 to $100 per month.
When people pay $1200 a year for a phone contract of course those companies are going to give them a phone every year. They paid for it 3 times over!
The contract model of phones is interesting because as consumers its not jut the phone you are paying for. The phone service is rolled in there too so you have to find a way to separate the cost of the phone to the service/add ons.
And there is also the time value concept of money. Companies would prefer your money upfront because having it now make it implicitly more valuable than giving the same amount over 2-3 years. They do it this way because phones are essential and the market shrinks dramatically if you dont offer a viable way into the market for the avg person.
Fredrik
Member
To some degree, yes. But also because you simply don't have the best possible version yourself rather than someone else having a better version.
Someone mentioned a completionist mindset, that some people feel that they have to buy PS4K just because, well, it's there. Got to have them all. DLC was mentioned too. Got to buy it all. Some people get annoyed at DLC because they want all there is for a game but don't want to buy it. Etc.
We have people complaining whenever PC gamers enters a DF faceoff thread too, even though the PC version is in the faceoff. Got to have the best version. Salty when the fact shows that you actually have a crappy one. And you'll see the same discussions when PS4K gamers enter PS4 game discussions if their egos get too big.
These discussions are the same everywhere. Phones, cars, salary, sports, artists, musicians, etc etc. If something or someone is out of reach and simply too good it might render the same feelings. Jealousy, inferiority complex, buygers remorse, etc.
Anyhow, it's complex and not as easy to understand or discuss as some people seem to think.
Personally I definitely want a PS4K. I just don't want to buy it since I already bought a PS4 for $399. I'm salty right now, but next gen I'll ignore PS5 and jump in day 1 on PS5.5 instead. Hopefully that'll make me like this new future a bit more. Same length between the generation, I'm just jumping in on the definitive version of the gen instead.
potatohead
Member
Very true.
But even though these companies are not getting the money upfront, when people sign up for contracts that "to be income" in the next month, next several months, and next year is essentially treated like income as if it were given all up front.
Why? Because it's almost guaranteed income and liability of the consumer that is reliably paid to the telecom company. There is very little difference from a business perspective of up front cash, to cash that is essentially guaranteed to come each month. They are both treated as if they are the same thing.
To them it really doesn't matter when that money is coming, as long as the user is reliable and the money is coming within a few months time anyway.
It's automatic credit to the companies. The only reason it is like that is for the reason you say: the average person can more easily afford a $100 per month (amazingly) than a $500 up front cost.
The absurdity of it is that the up front cost is almost invariably cheaper (if not for the fact that the base price of phones is so incredibly jacked up to make it *seem* like people save money on the monthly plans).
Affordability is not the mantra here by the phone companies, it is a matter of how much they can gouge people and how much they can convince people they are getting a "deal".
It is not much at all different from Summer/Winter sales of "up to 90% off" except almost everything is not 90% off and if it is it's still almost exactly the same price as when it was not on sale anyway, because of mark ups.
ChackanKun
Member
I think that consoles are now more closer to PC than ever, but hopefully in a more controlled manner.
I know it's not in the same market at all, but I try to compare it with the iPhone.
Each year a new model of the iPhone comes out. New Hardware, new O.S.
That doesn't mean that the older model, the one before the new one, becomes obsolete. Sure it doesn't have the same specs, it didn't run things so smoothly, but it works. And most of the time it works great.
For example, I bought the iPhone 3Gs in 2010. It had already been out for a year before that, so let's consider 2009. In 2010 the new iPhone 4 was out.
The O.S. was compatible with the 3Gs, and it ran games, apps, etc the same way than the iPhone 4 (maybe longer loading times, but whatever). I only felt the need to change to the iPhone 5 in 2013, because frankly by then the iPhone 3Gs was getting slow like hell and I wanted a bigger screen.
But considering it all, it worked flawlessly for 4 years. I skipped 2 new models because I didn't feel the need to upgrade.
What if Sony starts a new thing for consoles? Every 3 years a new improved model comes out. Not a new console, but a new model. Same O.S., same games, same everything but the hardware.
Sure in 10 years a new version of the O.S. would come out and it wouldn't be supported by the PS4. But that's 10 years.
If things are well played, if Sony/MS/Nintendo/whoever keeps things controlled, it's not like the Consoles are becoming PCs with constant need to upgrade. It would still be a closed environment, only with more options.
I know it's not in the same market at all, but I try to compare it with the iPhone.
Each year a new model of the iPhone comes out. New Hardware, new O.S.
That doesn't mean that the older model, the one before the new one, becomes obsolete. Sure it doesn't have the same specs, it didn't run things so smoothly, but it works. And most of the time it works great.
For example, I bought the iPhone 3Gs in 2010. It had already been out for a year before that, so let's consider 2009. In 2010 the new iPhone 4 was out.
The O.S. was compatible with the 3Gs, and it ran games, apps, etc the same way than the iPhone 4 (maybe longer loading times, but whatever). I only felt the need to change to the iPhone 5 in 2013, because frankly by then the iPhone 3Gs was getting slow like hell and I wanted a bigger screen.
But considering it all, it worked flawlessly for 4 years. I skipped 2 new models because I didn't feel the need to upgrade.
What if Sony starts a new thing for consoles? Every 3 years a new improved model comes out. Not a new console, but a new model. Same O.S., same games, same everything but the hardware.
Sure in 10 years a new version of the O.S. would come out and it wouldn't be supported by the PS4. But that's 10 years.
If things are well played, if Sony/MS/Nintendo/whoever keeps things controlled, it's not like the Consoles are becoming PCs with constant need to upgrade. It would still be a closed environment, only with more options.
I understand the assertion that comparing phones/tablets to consoles is an apples to oranges comparison and I agree....but while they are different they are not as different as people seem to think.
Technology as a whole has adopted the idea of incremental iterative changes. However terrible you think the idea of planned obsolescence is, it is a concept that is here to stay. Until this generation, gaming consoles have been the outlier and now both Sony and Microsoft have decided that it's time to get more in step with other high tech products.
Is it bad for consumers? In some ways it absolutely is and in other ways it's probably beneficial. The truth is that it doesn't matter, for better or worse it's progress and if you look at the full landscape of high tech products out there it was inevitable.
Technology as a whole has adopted the idea of incremental iterative changes. However terrible you think the idea of planned obsolescence is, it is a concept that is here to stay. Until this generation, gaming consoles have been the outlier and now both Sony and Microsoft have decided that it's time to get more in step with other high tech products.
Is it bad for consumers? In some ways it absolutely is and in other ways it's probably beneficial. The truth is that it doesn't matter, for better or worse it's progress and if you look at the full landscape of high tech products out there it was inevitable.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Pretty concise and factual statement I would say.
wapplew
Member
Incremental interative idea is not recent trend, it's been that way on other field since forever.
Phones company release 5 different phones every year before iPhone was a thing. PC was on X86 tech and incremental iterative since maybe Pentium, why do we have to adapt now, why not 30 years ago?
If the question is console market is shrinking, iterative model doesn't seems to be the answer.
It's doesn't solve the problem, or else PC, the origin of iterative model, won't be dropping sales every year. It face the same problem console have, their market get consume by mobile, iterative or not.
So, please explain why iterative is the only inevitable future and how can it solve the problem console facing.
Gotdatmoney
Member
I agree.
Essentially but its more valuable to have it all upfromt than in chunks because . . ..
The money has more value today than it has next year. Having it upfront means you can invest in different options to grow it not available if you have it staggered over time. This is partially why things cost more if you want to extend the payment period.
Pretty much
Its both. No matter how you slice it if the eentry barrier is to high they will not sell any phines period. They want to gouge you but they also know they cant destroy their major market either. There is a reason why in all this bullshit $20-30 plans exist.
I'm confused on this point
As far as my personal opinion on this situation. I dont really think its a big deal. Premium version exist amd entry level is now gonna drop. The market will either accept or reject it so its not really gonna be a huge issue. You invest in a console for the now, not the far away future. So if you got a launch system and you are mad things change 3 years in the future you really may as well never buy anything tech related. Market changes. Just gotta go with the flow on this stuff.
I'm not sure I fully understand the question but I'm not saying the iterative approach is going to solve the problem. I have no idea if it is or isn't going to solve "the problem", I'm not even sure there is a problem.
All I am saying is that if you are surprised that both Sony and Microsoft seem to be going to this approach for console releases you haven't been paying attention to the electronics market as a whole. Sony and Microsoft both believe that eventually this will be better for their bottom line or else they wouldn't be doing it but that doesn't make them right or wrong, or good or bad, it just makes them companies that are trying to maximize profits.
wapplew
Member
Nothing against you, but OP title state this is a necessary change for the industry and I simply do not agree.
It's not a necessary change for the industry, it's a change for the console manufacture to maximize profits as you state, which I agree.
I just don't know why we should embrace big company found a way to make more money out of us, cheerleading even.
potatohead
Member
This is not how accounting works, though, and how spending can work.
You can debit a company with expecting earnings for the full year, and even beyond, and similar measure that against expenses.
You can effectively spend money you don't already have, just by having that amount being guaranteed through credit to you, say through a contract or something.
This is not like an uncommon thing, it is how accounting works.
And don't forget that the extended payment period almost invariably means a higher "sum" at the end.
But again, through accounting it actually does mean you can spend money that is promised over months and even following years, virtually just as equally as cash you already were paid, as long as it is listed as a contractual obligation by the other party.
Marty Chinn
Member
I'm not sure I get your stance. Your OP wants to push that the iterative model is a good and necessary thing that needs to happen to transform the current business model, but you want to kind of gloss over the long term effects of doing so as you post here above. If you want to push this idea, you really need to explore what the long term effects could be and the ramifications involved. The problem I have with a lot of people pushing the pro stance of the iterative model and mid generation update, mind you those are two completely different things which people don't seem to acknowledge, is that they are thinking short term only. Most people think short sighted and when you think short sighted, you allow negative things to creep in until it's too late to go back. So we really should not just be looking at just the PS4 and PS4K, but how does this change things 5 years from now and then 10 years from now, because while things may not be a problem in the near term, certainly things can build up to be problematic in the long term.
They are providing consumers with more options which is why some are happy. Putting out a premium option for those that want it and reducing the price of the standard unit for those who want to pay less is a smart move.
Marty Chinn
Member
It's only a smart move if you expect there to be further growth compared to not doing it. You have to show that there are a sizable amount of people who wouldn't have ever bought a PS4 because a premium model didn't exist but will now do so because it does. Are there signs that this is the case? Or you have to show that the profit margin is great enough over the PS4 to pad Sony's bottom line without the expense in user base growth.
I agree with you, OP did not make a good case (or hardly any case at all) that this is necessary and I don't see it as necessary at all. I also don't necessarily think people should embrace this change but this change was coming.
My personal opinion is that people will accept the new model and the console manufacturers will make more money doing it this way but that is neither here nor there. As with anything, if you don't like it don't buy it and convince other people not to buy it. That's really the only way that Sony and Microsoft will listen.
Gotdatmoney
Member
This is different concept from the idea that that upfront money is more valuable than over a longer period of time.
The poimt I am making is $1000 now is worth more than $1000 next year. The accounting you are talking about is more about fairly describing your earnings. What I am saying is that no business is gonna charge you identical prices upfront vs over a long contract because the income does less for them over a longer period of time than upfront.
Yes sort of. Its more complicated than this. For examplw, if a compny goes bankriupt and you arent high on the list of owed debtors do you think it matters what your contractual obligation says if the money doesnt exist for you? There are implicit risks with contracts that make them less desireable than upfront cash flow.
Another example is if the bulk of your wealth is in the form of payments owing versus tied in more liquid assets your valuation as a business is probably gonna be lower. Granted this is really off topic.
I was more just saying phones have weird ass market that is really different from consoles.
That's how I see it as well. Chub made a case for why it makes financial sense to the corporations we buy these things from, but didn't make a case for why it makes sense to us as consumers to be given incentive to spend potentially double the money in the same period for hardware for minor graphical gains. The whole idea screams of whale-milking. They certainly aren't going after the mass market.
You say that as if the current generational business model hasn't also been about the manufacturers trying to maximize profit.
What makes the generational model an _inherently_ more consumer-friendly approach? Technology itself is inherently iterative and all that the generational model does is hide a few of the iterations. For most tech-based products, releases are far more iterative than consoles have been and customers have been perfectly fine in navigating those waters. Why should I cheerlead for manufacturers who are giving me less choice? Who are they to define what's sufficiently generational to you, or me?
Why should we cheerlead that this is a necessary change? As discerning consumers, we should instead be waiting to see what happens, because the industry right now is very turbulent. Why should we do Sony's or Microsoft's or Nintendo's job of advertising their product for them? It hasn't even been announced yet.
Because some see it as a way to save the console industry. This gen proved that consoles are still a viable mraket. It did not prove that they should stay exactly the same.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Very true.
I don't blame them for trying to stay alive, but I see no reason to advertise their product for them or evangelize the idea of iterative consoles.
GamerMax73
Member
2.3x more performance is not marginal. If the system only has a 3 year life span with games that are marginally better than their PS4 counter parts - why bother? I don't get it. There's no real point in buying or owning a Neo. I'm not suggesting Sony should lock PS5 to Neo, or course not. What I'm suggesting is Sony are smoothing the curve between cross-generation systems. The Neo will be closer to PS5 than PS4 is. Neo only makes sense if it is supported beyond PS4 in this cross generation period. Whether that's a full 3 years into PS5 when the next iteration might hit, or a shorter time frame I'd expect the market to decide based on Neo vs P5 installed user base.
Take another look at the iPhone model...
iOS1 - iPhone
iOS2 - iPhone, iPhone 3G
iOS3 - iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS
iOS4 - iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4
iOS5 - iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPhone 4S
iOS6 - iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPhone 5
iOS7 - iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, iPhone 5C, iPhone 5S
iOS8 - iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, iPhone 5C, iPhone 5S, iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus
iOS9 - iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, iPhone 5C, iPhone 5S, iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6S, iPhone 6S Plus, iPhone SE
Notice with each iteration how the base model shifts up one level. If Sony are following the iOS paradigm then the Neo suddenly makes perfect sense when the base model shifts up one level with the PS5 launch.
If all it was about was a continuous library and BC then they don't need Neo for that. Just release a kick ass PS5 in 2017/8 with full BC and get on with it. In this context Neo makes no sense.
The only way I can square the circle is to look at smoothing out the transition from one generation to the next. To introduce an element of buyer lock in to a continuous platform. This is a long term move along with PS Now to re-establish the Playstation brand and re-define Playstation as a Platform. Playstation will be Sony's continuous platform that competes across traditional console, micro console, mobile and PC gaming spaces.
Even ignoring the dozens of reasons that the phone market is not the same as the console market, and that Sony can't push fast mainstream acceptance in the same way that Apple can.......do you really want the games marketplace to turn into the iOS marketplace? Do you really want every game being written and designed for some junky 5 year old hardware because that's where the userbase is largest?
It seems to me the problem is that with incremental upgrades you end up being perpetually way behind the technology curve.
It seems to me the problem is that with incremental upgrades you end up being perpetually way behind the technology curve.
Similar threads
- Locked