Support NeoGAF

[Razgreez]

See, but PCs aren't relevant to the discussion; that's a whole separate argument. I'm a PC gamer primarily and PCs are a whole different beast. You fiddle with everything, you likely build a more expensive machine (yes, I know $400 "console killer" PCs exist, but frankly you're more likely to splurge on parts). People don't necessarily want that.

So they look to the alternative. Hey, here's this static thing for $400. If history is any indication, it stays the same for 5-8 years. It offers fantastic return on investment, and is at the forefront of every developer's mind for those 5-8 years. It gets the first class treatment the whole way.

Now it doesn't. Now I'm sure a lot of people (especially those who purchased in the last year or so) are wondering why they didn't build a PC.

And of course there are no rumblings in store. There's no marketing yet. By and large, the public probably doesn't even know a "PS4k" is in the pipeline.

Return on investment? You are able to sell the PS4 for more than you purchased it? And no it does not get 'first class' treatment the whole way because, especially with this gen, it was never first class technology to begin with. It was simply an affordable compromise and it remains that.

On a side note, if the PS5 does come in 2018/19, I really, really hope they skip Vega and jump straight to Navi. With that being said, PC gaming is looking more inciting to me than ever before.

Remember that the PS4 is a semi-custom GCN design so they're not strictly bound to stick precisely to AMD's architectures. Either way Playstation's will likely continue to use chips which make 'economic sense' as opposed to chasing out and put power going forward.

 

[Massa]

Moment to moment shooting is but one element out of a countless number that add to gameplay or enhance overall experiences, whether in terms of player freedom, options, scope, more strategic or tactical options and so on. There is literally no logic in focusing on only moment to moment shooting as the only barometer for progress or change. The things I mentioned all add to the aforementioned, and things like the scope of the game world (eg more open spaces for better and more complex vehicular combat, or larger bosses with more players involved etc), destruction (for taking up or strategically blowing away cover etc), far more NPC's (to interact or play with) and so on, are certainly going to going to change the experience in a tangible way.

What limits those things in current games isn't the tech in consoles, it's the budget in game development.

 

[potatohead]

What limits those things in current games isn't the tech in consoles, it's the budget in game development.

Yea people always conveniently forget about this.

They think "oh magical super powerful CPU" is going to itself deliver somehow engineered games beyond our wildest imaginations(tm)!

But forget about the part.... hey look people have to actually make a framework to develop that stuff that doesn't put them out of business

 

[Razgreez]

What limits those things in current games isn't the tech in consoles, it's the budget in game development.

It's both actually. Has Bungie not had to cater for the memory limitations on PS3 and Xbox 360 their engine might have been an entirely different monster to the mess it currently is

 

[onQ123]

What are the chances of ths thing playing AAA games in 4K?

£ dont hVe a 4k TV but wilo upgrade this year probably , trying to sell my 7.1 to buy a 4k 7.1 receiver then later a TV

I think we have to figure out what qualify for AAA.


Like if a game was made for Xbox One/PS4 & it's considered AAA & they make the choice to push the game at 4K on PS4K but turn down some effects to reach 4K & it look better in 4K with less effects than it do on PS4 & Xbox One at the lower resolution can you say it's not AAA anymore because it lost some effects even if it look better?

 

[potatohead]

It's both actually. Has Bungie not had to cater for the memory limitations on PS3 and Xbox 360 their engine might have been an entirely different monster to the mess it currently is

Well of course the exception is going to be cross-generation games.

Bungie decided to make a game to hit platforms 8 years old at that time.... not 2 years old. Lol.

 

[phatmike128]

I don't know if has been mentioned (don't have enough time to read the whole thread) but if what developers are being told (that no ps4 Neo games can use features that exclude operation on ps4) then I think that is a huge negative for the playerbase and those who choose to buy this new hardware. At some point they will have to have a cutoff point, just like min specs on a PC. Basically the PlayStation becomes a simplified PC albeit couch-time closed system. It will require some consumer adjustment basically, but since it's a closed system new adopters will have to accept they aren't going to get what the system could deliver.

 

[Clyzm]

Return on investment? You are able to sell the PS4 for more than you purchased it? And no it does not get 'first class' treatment the whole way because, especially with this gen, it was never first class technology to begin with. It was simply an affordable compromise and it remains that.

See, this mindset is what's wrong with this debate. People keep bringing PCs into it. PC tech is totally irrelevant. Whoever bought a PS4 thought it was the best thing out to suit their needs. Now it's getting a direct upgrade earlier on than they thought it would.

Also, by "return on investment" I meant in long run entertainment, not a stock market quote. Maybe I should have used a better example, but I thought I was being clear.

 

[kyser73]

Surely the way alleviate the issue with FC is to allow for both FC PS4Neo titles and exclusive PS5 titles? Make the PS5 fully BC with the OG4, and encourage a 'Mode 5' option, similar to Neo mode.

This assumes of course that there would be the ability to do this.

Here's a question:

For those who talk about a 5 year cycle, would you be OK with Neo-exclusive titles after 2018?

 

[Lemondish]

I think we have to figure out what qualify for AAA.


Like if a game was made for Xbox One/PS4 & it's considered AAA & they make the choice to push the game at 4K on PS4K but turn down some effects to reach 4K & it look better in 4K with less effects than it do on PS4 & Xbox One at the lower resolution can you say it's not AAA anymore because it lost some effects even if it look better?

Having issues navigating through this. What do you really mean?

Surely the way alleviate the issue with FC is to allow for both FC PS4Neo titles and exclusive PS5 titles? Make the PS5 fully BC with the OG4, and encourage a 'Mode 5' option, similar to Neo mode.

This assumes of course that there would be the ability to do this.

Here's a question:

For those who talk about a 5 year cycle, would you be OK with Neo-exclusive titles after 2018?

Isn't that implied by the mere fact that they want a five year cycle?

 

[Razgreez]

See, this mindset is what's wrong with this debate. People keep bringing PCs into it. PC tech is totally irrelevant. Whoever bought a PS4 thought it was the best thing out to suit their needs. Now it's getting a direct upgrade earlier on than they thought it would.

Also, by "return on investment" I meant in long run entertainment, not a stock market quote. Maybe I should have used a better example, but I thought I was being clear.

PC is not irrelevant especially since the development of PC tech now directly affects the development of consoles (not that it ever existed in a vacuum but they've never been as tightly coupled as they are now). So your saying it's 'irrelevant' to the discussion doesn't change that reality.

The pertinent word in your post is 'thought' though. You thought, perhaps based more on 'previous experience' than research and information, that the console you bought wouldn't be 'getting an upgrade' as soon as it is. But it is and that's fine because you're still getting what you paid for and, on the upside, the new console is directly aligned with the architecture of your current one so support isn't compromised. Whereas during normal generational shifts your old games often didn't work on your new console at all and the differing architectures meant support of your old device was deeply compromised

 

[family_guy]

Pretty much the same arguments for and against this are being regurgitated. Don't think anyone's mind will be changed. I'm just glad the leaks came out now. It's actually probably an intentional controlled leak by Sony. Let people exhaust themselves talking about this, so by the time they officially announce it people are already over the shock factor and just want to see the games.

 

[nib95]

What limits those things in current games isn't the tech in consoles, it's the budget in game development.

I don't think that's necessarily always true. I mean, we see improvements in graphical fidelity and tech even when budgets remain the same in some cases, especially as third party engines such as Unreal etc advance each generation, and in doing so put a large chunk of the legwork in for devs, improving tools, features and so on, making it easier for devs to extract more from better hardware. Add to that, far more powerful hardware not held back by older hardware, would allow you to brute force certain graphical features that would otherwise take far more optimisation consideration if cross gen. I mean, that's essentially what's going to happen with the PS4K, though it's hardware performance is never truly going to be fully utilised or maximised unless it has it's own exclusives.

 

[Marty Chinn]

Whereas during normal generational shifts your old games often didn't work on your new console at all and the differing architectures meant support of your old device was deeply compromised

Funny, I remember very distinctly my GC games working on my Wii and my Wii games working on my Wii U. I also remember my GBA games working on my DS and my DS games working on my 3DS. I also remember my PS1 games working on my PS2, and my PS1 and PS2 games working on my PS3.

I would say games not working doesn't quite fit the definition of "often." Backwards compatibility has been a frequent feature in gaming over the last couple of decades.

 

[wapplew]

Surely the way alleviate the issue with FC is to allow for both FC PS4Neo titles and exclusive PS5 titles? Make the PS5 fully BC with the OG4, and encourage a 'Mode 5' option, similar to Neo mode.

This assumes of course that there would be the ability to do this.

Here's a question:

For those who talk about a 5 year cycle, would you be OK with Neo-exclusive titles after 2018?

Always prefer exclusive.
As future PS4K owner, I want my new and shinny reach full potential.

Pretty much the same arguments for and against this are being regurgitated. Don't think anyone's mind will be changed. I'm just glad the leaks came out now. It's actually probably an intentional controlled leak by Sony. Let people exhaust themselves talking about this, so by the time they officially announce it people are already over the shock factor and just want to see the games.

Pretty much. I maybe between bargaining and depression, since no way I can stop this motion, I guess I'll be at acceptance after E3.

 

[Bitch Pudding]

My problem with it is every 3 yrs paying $400 for 2x performance rather than 6 yrs and 8x performance.

So, your math is weak,

After 3 years, you get the best console (tech-wise) you can get - for $399 bucks. In the case of PS4, it will have round about twice the power of the old one, while XBOX 1.5 may even 3x stronger to close the gap (also, tech-wise).

3 years alter, when we either get the next iteration or basically a "new" generation, you'll again get the best console available. For $399. That one might be 2-3x faster than the current one. Or maybe even faster, thanks to a new generation of GPU-tech or memory (e.g. HBM), who knows?!

Thing is: With or without the iterative model: There is absolute no guarantee that we'll get 8-10x more powerful consoles after 6 years, basically because Moore's law doesn't apply anymore. And this applies, because I am sure as hell neither MS nor Sony will switch away from x86 in the forseeable future.

 

[Clyzm]

But it is and that's fine because you're still getting what you paid for

That's it. That's the argument right there. The whole discussion boils down to only that point.

The fact of the matter is, someone that bought a PS4 isn't getting what they paid for (in their eyes). As I've stated before, someone who buys a console has an expectation that the console will be the newest and greatest for 5-8 years. The PS4 is under 3 years into its life cycle and is getting an upgrade. It's not a generational shift, but see my next point:

so support isn't compromised. Whereas during normal generational shifts your old games often didn't work on your new console at all and the differing architectures meant support of your old device was deeply compromised

Isn't it compromised? Do you truly believe the developers will put out new games that work well on both systems? Ubisoft can't make Unity run at a consistent framerate on the PS4 at this very moment. Dark Souls 3 dips to 25fps. Lichdom is a disaster. Witcher 3 dropped to 20fps until a recent patch. Battlefront ran like a slideshow. These are not isolated incidents at all. Devs suck at optimization this generation and have quickly outpaced the current consoles.

With the above in mind, now that developers have a more powerful machine to work with, do you truly believe that we're going to get reasonable and not half assed experiences on the original PS4? Developers aren't even doing it right now. Once a faster system is out, there will be a lot of moments to say "should have bought a Neo" when the new thing runs at 20fps because the developer put even less time into the PS4 version and allowed feature creep to max out the new console.

 

[Renekton]

PC is not irrelevant especially since the development of PC tech now directly affects the development of consoles (not that it ever existed in a vacuum but they've never been as tightly coupled as they are now). So your saying it's 'irrelevant' to the discussion doesn't change that reality.

I'm thinking more HPC and mobile tech than PC (desktop personal computer) nowadays.

The hypothetical PS4K's Jaguar and Polaris 10 seem to be mobility solutions.

 

[DrownDown]

One thing I find interesting about this whole argument over the PS4K is:

You have one side of the fence that believes it's not fair to early adopters/original PS4 owners and they believe they're being treated as "second tier" customers. Yet, they don't consider that it's also not fair, by that logic, that people who can afford the upgrade or haven't bought a new console yet only have the option of (currently 3 year) old hardware.

Basically, you shouldn't be allowed to buy new, just because I bought old...

You have the freedom to buy or not buy this new hardware. It is no one else's fault that you bought when you did, or what model. Just my 2 cents.

Disclaimer: I own a PS4 and will not be buying PS4K, as I own a capable PC. Guess what? I'll still enjoy my PS4, just like I always have.

 

[nib95]

So, your math is weak,

After 3 years, you get the best console (tech-wise) you can get - for $399 bucks. In the case of PS4, it will have round about twice the power of the old one, while XBOX 1.5 may even 3x stronger to close the gap (also, tech-wise).

3 years alter, when we either get the next iteration or basically a "new" generation, you'll again get the best console available. For $399. That one might be 2-3x faster than the current one. Or maybe even faster, thanks to a new generation of GPU-tech or memory (e.g. HBM), who knows?!

Thing is: With or without the iterative model: There is absolute no guarantee that we'll get 8-10x more powerful consoles after 6 years, basically because Moore's law doesn't apply anymore. And this applies, because I am sure as hell neither MS nor Sony will switch away from x86 in the forseeable future.

x86 is cpu side instruction set architecture. You're not factoring in any massive improvements on the GPU performance and architecture side. Even then, you could still get far better cpu's that were still x86, such as AMD's Zen line slated for this year for example, or whatever cpu AMD will inevitably bring out in 2018/19. Huge GPU gains are also still possible, which if the video linked previously is anything to go by, could involve ultra powerful AMD Navi multi-small die GPU's that improve performance in a big way. Then there's HBM ram etc too.

I don't think a PS5 that is say, 6-8x the performance of the PS4 is totally outside the realm of possibility, especially if as a result of the PS4K it releases in say 2019.

 

[onQ123]

Having issues navigating through this. What do you really mean?



Isn't that implied by the mere fact that they want a five year cycle?

He/She asked if the PS4K would be able to run AAA games at 4K & I'm asking if lowing the settings of a AAA PS4/Xbox One game in exchange for a 4K output would stop it from being AAA,

The cleaner image from 4K might make the game look better than it does on Xbox One & PS4.

Keep in mind that PS4K is 3X more powerful than Xbox One so they should be able to get games that run at 1080P on Xbox One to run in 4K on PS4K with a few changes.

 

[pottuvoi]

I think we have to figure out what qualify for AAA.


Like if a game was made for Xbox One/PS4 & it's considered AAA & they make the choice to push the game at 4K on PS4K but turn down some effects to reach 4K & it look better in 4K with less effects than it do on PS4 & Xbox One at the lower resolution can you say it's not AAA anymore because it lost some effects even if it look better?

We also have to figure out what the 4k means in the content.
Games just do not render everything in output resolution, they haven't done it in ages. (Ps2 or earlier.)

When game has been designed to run on 1080p display they could change some passes to work in final resolution and leave everything else for lower resolution their angular resolution on screen hasn't changed.
We certainly will see some games with edge resolution of full 4k.

Keep in mind that PS4K is 3X more powerful than Xbox One so they should be able to get games that run at 1080P on Xbox One to run in 4K on PS4K with a few changes.

Agreed.
Even games that run 1080p on Ps4 can made to run 4k on PS4K with few changes.

 

[Bitch Pudding]

I don't think a PS5 that is say, 6-8x the performance of the PS4 is totally outside the realm of possibility, especially if as a result of the PS4K it releases in say 2019.

Of course not, as I said, they are going to put the best hardware into the next it-/generation $399 can get you. The famous competition will make sure of that. My point is that this will happen rather independent from the existence of a PS4k. The guy I quoted basically said the iterative model will result into another rather marginal (2x) improvement in 3-4 years, and you and me don't think that's a given (yet it's possible).

 

[farmerboy]

- My foremost concern is having a box to plug and play. The boxes are getting harder to make and sell, so if Sony thinks this is a better way forward then I'm on board. I hate the idea of streaming and the cloud so keep giving me boxes!

- Time to triangle my arse. Games are hard to make, so if keeping a more coherent and consistent tool and os base means more games quicker out the door, then that's fantastic news.

- Devs are split. Ok maybe they are. But are these the devs that pay the bills and wages? Or are these the devs that draw textures? Until we get studio heads saying bad idea, then I take it with a grain of salt. The studios are businesses and we need these businesses to make money or no hobby for us. Individuals may not like it but they may be paying no attention to the business case for it. Studio heads obviously do and their opinion is where it's at.

- I do feel sorry for someone who bought in the last 6-12 months. You thought you were set for at least 3 years. I get that. And frankly, I don't know what Sony can do to appease you. At least you still get all the same games but I'm not sure that's "enough".

- PS4 games are going to suffer. I doubt devs will optimise for a 3-5 million install base and forego the 40-45 million install base. I gather that the games will always be PS4 then ported "up" rather than the other way round. In any case, how are we ever gonna ascertain what caused "that horrendous pop in on game x".

- The opposite of that is PS4K games will never reach their full potential. And that is a bummer. Though I'd imagine as the install bases equalize or the PS4K takes over, then games may become PS4K first and ported down. I suppose it's up to studios how they manage this and consumer expectations. But this is a tough one.

- Or maybe the 3rd iteration of the PS4 (or a brand new PS5) is the delineation point. Sony may only ever keep 2 going at once. In any case it seems the more powerful unit is never fully utilised. But this already happens in PC. I haven't seen a min spec that requires SLI Titans yet ;-)

Finally, it does strike me as amusing that I share the same concerns as a lot of the naysayers here, but I come to the conclusion that it will work. It's exceedingly obvious that Sony's messaging will need to be on point.

Interesting times ahead.

 

[GamerMax73]

Very far behind. The point is though that consoles leap forward on a generational basis though. Every 5-7 years you get new hotness that comes closer to cutting edge. With the iterational model though, you will never have that

That won't change. Personally I'm expecting a 10TFlop (arbitrary performance measure) PS5 in the 2019 time frame, nothing's changed there.

What happens is we end up in a perpetual "cross generation" since developers will always and consistently be ignoring newer hardware to cater to a larger userbase. At least in the generational model, the cross-gen stuff died relatively quickly.

Did it? We're nearly 3 years in and Uncharted 4 is released next week. Pretty much the first major push the PS4 title by a first party studio. Horizon Zero Dawn is rumored to be pushed back to 2017. Still no concrete news on The Last Guardian. As for PS3 - Black Ops III - 6 Nov 2015, Metal Gear Solid V - 1 Sept 2015.

All I'm saying is let the market decide and don't cut off Neo prematurely. Neo as a spec and system makes zero sense if it is completely tied to PS4 through it's entire lifespan.

 

[GamerMax73]

But that's wrong, which makes almost your entire point illogical. If your talking about the PS4K being closer to the PS5 than the PS4 being to Neo, my rebuttal is that your only talking about GPU power with 2.3 more performance. By the time PS5 comes out, the Zen CPU will destroy Jaguar, the HBM memory will destroy GDDR5 limitations and bandwidth, and the GPU will go far beyond what 4tflops could render with ease, not just in terms of CU count, but architecture and further silicon reductions.

PS4 - PS5 > Neo - PS5. Simples.

 

[wapplew]

That won't change. Personally I'm expecting a 10TFlop (arbitrary performance measure) PS5 in the 2019 time frame, nothing's changed there.

I have no doubt we can have 6-8x on flops, but that ram size thou. faster ram? sure
8-16x of the ram size? 64-128GB? Maybe in 2030?

 

[mikefrails]

OP sounds like he works for PlayStation.

 

[2blackcats]

I don't see why people think the most recent two iterations are the ones that will be supported. When the PS5 launches I think it will have exclusives. So when the the PS5 is on the market there will be two types of games, one's that run an all 3 consoles and ones that only run on PS5. First party exclusives only for the first while admittedly. To push the new hardware.

 

[GamerMax73]

Its not going to be a 'generational leap' like we saw in years past anyway, atleast in regards to GPU, because Neo will have been 4TFLOPS, and PS5 will have at most 15 or so by the time it comes out, so at the very most a 3 or 4x upgrade as opposed to a 10x upgrade for graphics rendering

Okay, as far as I can tell the historical average leap between generations is closer to a 5x performance boost not 10. Use PS4 as your base model not Neo to get the generational performance boost. The starting point is 1.8TFlops not 4TFLops. I doubt at the moment PS5 will be much greater than 10TFlop. Now go away and multiply 1.8 by 5. Now multiply 4 by 2.5. Notice how close the answers are to those two sums? Guess what, the generational leap hasn't changed - a half way house has just been inserted, nothing more.

 

[TheLegendOfMart]

I don't see why people think the most recent two iterations are the ones that will be supported. When the PS5 launches I think it will have exclusives. So when the the PS5 is on the market there will be two types of games, one's that run an all 3 consoles and ones that only run on PS5. First party exclusives only for the first while admittedly. To push the new hardware.

That's not gonna happen. People saw how much 360/PS3 held back XB1/PS4 games.

This shit is gonna get messy once PS5 hits. PS4 will get retired and PS4.5 will be what the PS4 was, except now games are being held back by a console that is at least 5x less powerful.

 

[Illucio]

After a lot of thought I see it as a bad idea for multiple reasons.

1. The huge advantage consoles have always had was that each console was standardized making it easier for developers to develop for.

2. Having multiple consoles means developers have to create games for both consoles since they need to have their games running on both the PS4 and PS4K.

3. Standardized consoles forces developers to optimize their games to run on current gen consoles to the best of it's ability. This creates creative ideas on how to condense and run their games better with the hardware available without quickly going to the idea that having better tech is the only answer to improve.
So essentially if I gave you a 1GB flashdrive and tell you to fit the biggest and best game into it, Developers will tell me they want more memory, but I tell them there is no other option so they will find ways to make it work. <-- That's the pure benefit of consoles and is my number 1 reason WHY I like consoles.

4. Your dividing your audience too early in the consoles life cycle, Nintendo gets a pass since they release updated versions of their handheld late into their console life, but also take in the fact that handhelds are dramatically cheaper then consoles, so trading in a handheld to upgrade is a cheap exchange. Having a divided audience midway would create performance issues for people with the regular PS4 which creates anger since your essentially released a few major games and telling them it's already time to upgrade. This is riot fuel.

5. Having a set gaming system means it standardizes ALL games for a generation. This helps other small developers catch up to new standards.

 

[GamerMax73]

We have developers like Chubs and the gent from Absinthe games both discussing more in depth aspects of what it is like to actually develop on the current gen systems, and the point I was making is this:

That moving forward, it would alleviate the issue of generational leaps and the restart process on tools, development knowledge and the spectrum of launch games/risk. That It helps keep the ecosystem consistent and the developer structure able to iterate on itself more tightly, as was being covered extensively earlier in this thread, I suggest you click back a few pages if you didn't read, it was interesting stuff.

Quoted for it's importance

 

[kaching]

Would a simple "some" hardcore gamers in the front of my sentence made more sense to you?

there have already been people in this thread saying they agree with me. Why are you being so hostile? Have I done something to offend you?

Yes, it's amazing what the simple things can do for conversation! I'm not trying to be hostile, it's just painfully obvious when you guys try to stretch your personal stance by ginning up wider group support for it. Yes, there are people agreeing with you in this and other threads like it, but that doesn't establish how widespread the sentiment really is.

I don't buy that as a valid reason not to consider PC.

it wasn't so much a valid reason not to consider PC as it was a valid reason to consider console. Some people do end up doing both, after all. And somewhere in the mix I would wager there are people who might like the general characteristics of a console with a hardware refresh rate a little more akin to a PC.

Do you feel threatened by the negative sentiments? I never specified it was a brand people are championing. And yes, that's exactly what I'm getting at, it's a counter-reactive group to the mixed reaction to the 4K rumor. Why do people feel the need to persuade others to 'their side' now when we haven't even seen an official announcement? No, this PS4K-iterative-is-the-future didn't exist in this intensity before the rumor. I don't see what you're trying to do by bringing that up.

Sorry, not a brand per se, only the business model by which the manufacturer justifies a product to further the brand. I guess I'm just wondering why those in favor of a more iterative approach are necessarily engaging in propaganda by your argument, while those preferring the status quo, don't seem to get the same label. Especially when it's well established that these sides existed long before this rumor popped up, regardless of whether it ever resulted in a debate of this intensity before.

 

[GamerMax73]

Hold on a minute, all of that is simply on the assumption that Sony stick to iterative releases from now on out. We don't even know if that is going to be the case or not. For all we know the PS5 will still be a massive generational jump not held back by the PS4K, requiring the same sort of resets we got in the past.

You are 100% correct with this. This is the most important question Sony needs to answer. However, I personally think that the Neo as a system in it's own right makes zero sense given its rumored specs if the PS5 is a complete fresh start. Forget Neo being a screw you for PS4 owners, it's potential Neo owners that Sony will really be holding the middle finger up to.

 

[TheLegendOfMart]

After a lot of thought I see it as a bad idea for multiple reasons.

Exactly. Consoles were designed to be forward thinking, look at Uncharted Drakes Fortune then look at The Last of Us both games on the same generation of console and TLOU looks incredible purely because of lessons learned and mature dev tools.

Three years in the generation has been reset and developers don't have the time or money to get to grips with the PS4 when they have to optimise for Neo which might have a different architecture of GPU.

Splitting the gen is a bad thing, when games already sometimes run sub 1080p and sometimes sub 30fps bringing out a 2x more powerful console and forcing developers to have a NEO mode in games is going to cost more time and money that developers really don't have, especially in a 'known, shippable' and 'release now, patch later' age.

There is two ways this is going to go:

1) PS4 games will run as they always have, Neo games will be an afterthought which begs the question why release Neo at all?

2) Neo will get the focus because it will look great in sizzle reels in E3, PS4 games will be the ugly sister who never gets photographed or videoed. Neo will get 1080p30 amazing looking games and PS4 game resolution will start to drop closer and closer to 720p like Xbox One and framerates will start to look like PS3, closer to 20s than 30.

It's a nightmare situation both ways, trying to sell a more expensive console that has marginally better looking games or shitting on 40m+ PS4 users putting them off your brand.

It is an incredibly stupid thing for Sony to do. If the extra power is for VR then it should just be a more expensive VR edition that plays games exactly the same as PS4 but devs could use the extra power to drive better looking VR games.

 

[wapplew]

You are 100% correct with this. This is the most important question Sony needs to answer. However, I personally think that the Neo as a system in it's own right makes zero sense given its rumored specs if the PS5 is a complete fresh start. Forget Neo being a screw you for PS4 owners, it's potential Neo owners that Sony will really be holding the middle finger up to.

If the machine have "4" in the name, I think we should assume it won't be fully compatible with PS5. Neo owner want enhance PS4, I'm sure we all have our expectation check.
A middle finger from Sony is what I hope for.

 

[GamerMax73]

Surely the way alleviate the issue with FC is to allow for both FC PS4Neo titles and exclusive PS5 titles? Make the PS5 fully BC with the OG4, and encourage a 'Mode 5' option, similar to Neo mode.

As with exclusive Neo titles now, exclusive PS5 titles might turn out to be problematic early on. However the idea of a 'Mode 5' in future Neo games, just like a 'Mode Neo' in PS4 games post September this year, kind makes sense and how I'd have assumed this was going down.

 

[xxracerxx]

That's not gonna happen. People saw how much 360/PS3 held back XB1/PS4 games.

This shit is gonna get messy once PS5 hits. PS4 will get retired and PS4.5 will be what the PS4 was, except now games are being held back by a console that is at least 5x less powerful.

Wait....do you believe that the PS5 will just be PS4K.5?

 

[Iztok Mravlja]

OP sounds like he works for PlayStation.

I wouldn't go as far as saying that, but honestly, I haven't read a single convincing argument in that entire OP. It all sounds like apologetics or, at best, outlines benefits for the platform holder.

I don't care about Sony. I wouldn't support bad practices that harm me as a consumer just so they can increase their bottom line. I understand there's interesting conversations to be had arguing from Sony's point of view, but let's not base our conclusions from that.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm happy to ignore them if they decide to make gaming into something I'm not interested in, like so many companies did with mobile gaming, for example.

Luckily, I'm already heavily invested in PC, so that's my out if this future comes to pass. And I'm fine with that.

 

[TheLegendOfMart]

Wait....do you believe that the PS5 will just be PS4K.5?

No?

Do you think that by PS5 is going to be this massive 10x leap in power?

 

[xxracerxx]

No?

Do you think that by PS5 is going to be this massive 10x leap in power?

No but I don't see PS5 exclusives games being held back by the PS4K once the games get a rollin'.

 

[Bitch Pudding]

OP sounds like he works for PlayStation.

Thanks for your analysis and attempt to contribute to this conversation...

 

[TheLegendOfMart]

No but I don't see PS5 exclusives games being held back by the PS4K once the games get a rollin'.

Difference between Xbox One and PS4 is 40% in power and look at the difference. Xbox One runs anywhere from 720p to 900p for a lot of games compared to 1080p of PS4.

PS4K is supposedly 100% faster than PS4 so you are going to see a similar situation.

What's going to happen with a PS5 that is potentially 400% faster than PS4K?

Do you think it's NOT going to hold PS5 games back?

Sony are teaching this generation that games will be forwards and backwards compatible, you can't do that then pull the rug from under people saying PS5 will have exclusive games.

 

[MilkyJoe]

Difference between Xbox One and PS4 is 40% in power and look at the difference. Xbox One runs anywhere from 720p to 900p for a lot of games compared to 1080p of PS4.

PS4K is supposedly 100% faster than PS4 so you are going to see a similar situation.

What's going to happen with a PS5 that is potentially 400% faster than PS4K?

Do you think it's NOT going to hold PS5 games back?


Sony are teaching this generation that games will be forwards and backwards compatible, you can't do that then pull the rug from under people saying PS5 will have exclusive games.

Because you are not getting that power increase anymore, it'll be frequent incremental new releases, generations are gone.

Think PC model. That's what is going to happen now.

 

[TheLegendOfMart]

Because you are not getting that power increase anymore, it'll be frequent incremental new releases, generations are gone.

Think PC model. That's what is going to happen now.

People get screwed in every situation then. Each iteration being only twice as fast is going to hold back console games more than a 5-6 year cycle ever did.

True 4K in the thermal envelope they are aiming for with PS4, PS4K and beyond isn't going to be achievable for a long, long time.

 

[MogCakes]

it wasn't so much a valid reason not to consider PC as it was a valid reason to consider console. Some people do end up doing both, after all. And somewhere in the mix I would wager there are people who might like the general characteristics of a console with a hardware refresh rate a little more akin to a PC.

Earlier you stated the iterative vs not was at the heart of the PC vs console debate - why this shift in tone? PC gamers aren't about to start buying every new iteration of consoles just because they've gone iterative. The crowd that this appeals to are already in the console ecosystem.

Sorry, not a brand per se, only the business model by which the manufacturer justifies a product to further the brand. I guess I'm just wondering why those in favor of a more iterative approach are necessarily engaging in propaganda by your argument, while those preferring the status quo, don't seem to get the same label. Especially when it's well established that these sides existed long before this rumor popped up, regardless of whether it ever resulted in a debate of this intensity before.

I call out what I see. Do you see threads championing the status quo like we've seen the past week on GAF about the PS4k and iterations? When there's a thread attempting to 'quell' the 'other side' from the so-called naysayers and convert them, I'll call them out too. A spade is a spade. And again, this is a product that hasn't even been announced officially, yet it's apparently so important that the negativity is addressed - by other consumers? That doesn't make sense to me.

 

[m4st4]

I blame VR.

PS4 hit 32 million units sold recently and their response isn't a software output that customers certainly deserve at this this point (we're in it's third year and still not that many must-buy exclusives) but another console + you also need a 4K TV and VR on top of it cause you know they're going to push PS4K as the primary console for VR.

I'm pissed and disappointed at this decision because I recently bought a pretty damn good TV, which is still not 4K because, at least in my country, not a lot of people feel the need to jump on that train. Hell, for the majority blu-rays are still not the standard (I can't live without my movies in HD but it is how it is).

 

[wapplew]

Haha.. That's actually very well put and makes quite some sense. I personally don't have an expertise in game development and what this new trend might mean for it, but I can totally see your point given the many delayed games and the long time most games (aside from some franchises) need to be developed right now. At the same time, while you're saying the game industry needs to slow down, most people coming from last gen complained how long and slow that generation was. And as the OP wrote and I think you're also saying in your post (with the PS5 comment) is that it will take a very long time (probably quite longer than the already considered long previous generation) to have the same sort of gap in technology that usually was between generations. I find this periodical small upgrades/bumps to consoles as a solution to that.

It's not about tech not getting there, its about fully utilize those tech will be too expensive and time consuming.
I'm sure how ever slow the tech might be, we will reach a point where a 6-8x more powerful machine at $399 will be available. But making games that reach full potential of 8x more powerful hardware could be simply impossible to make profit.

So, this is where dev/publisher/console manufacturer start to draw a line, drop that anchor and say now we reach a critical point, from here on out, games will only be more bell and whistle, please enjoy some sprinkle and pretend we used every drop of your new hardware.

 

[RalchAC]

I'm going to try and talk about a point of view that you won't see much in an enthusiast site like GAF.

This is huge for people with a limited budget. Really. And by huge I mean good.

Before, people with a limited budget or a different set of priorities had to buy their console at the tail of a generation. They enjoyed what they got for a while, but sooner rather than later a new device would release and eventually lock them out of the new games.

With this option, you get:

1) A low end model at 99-150€/$ were profits are small but you focus on making it as affordable as possible in order to get more people in your ecosystem.
2) A mid tier model that can be bought a for 200-300€ were Sony gets slightly better profits and should have a longer lasting appeal, since it isn't on its dawn.
3) A high tier model at 350-400€/$ geared towards a more enthusiast audience.

People circumstances change over time. Sometimes you don't have enough money, sometimes your priorities are different and you can't justify spending 400€/$ on a unnecessary device. With this model, these people can just buy a lower tier model and enjoy it until your situation has changes and you can get a better option.

And, at 99/150€, you are getting a glorified set top box that on top of having the games your kids want has a Blu-Ray player and a lot of media features. This could be great for stuff like PlayStation Vue too.