Support NeoGAF

[TheKastorian]

I am convinced that PS4K and the Nintendo NX are the same console:

Nintendo = Neo

 

[Mr. Giggles]

There is a good reason to do it.

It's basically letting people drop softly, rather than all at once on announcement date.

Anytime there is major change people will get upset. And many will stay upset, but it will soften the blow when the change actually comes.

Such is life.

No argument from me on those points

In my eyes, you have a 2 choices

(A) sit, accept it and deal the with the out-come:

> Poorly thought out Season passes
> Poorly thought out DLC
> Poorly thought out microtransactions
> Pay to play online multiplayer

or

(B) you can do something about them:

> The all digital future and used games fuss (see XB1 and PS4 reveals)
> vote with your wallet

Personally, I'm a choice (B) guy, i'll be voting with my wallet and soon hope to move to the glorious PC master race....cause lets face it, they were right... about everything

 

[Narishma]

[...] The pace and cost of current tech means to make an affordable console these days, one that can sell well, it will at best match rather than supercede what's available on a triple the cost PC. So to make sure the console platform isn't years behind Sony are doing this, Microsoft and even Nintendo possibly following too [...]

I've seen variations on this argument but I don't think it's that relevant TBH. The two platforms are separate for the most part and I don't think the success or failure of a console has ever been tied to how powerful it is or is not relative to contemporary PCs. So I don't think it's a problem for a console to be years behind PCs in terms of tech, or even behind other consoles as Sony and Nintendo have shown many times in previous generations.

 

[LookAtMeGo]

I am convinced that PS4K and the Nintendo NX are the same console:

Nintendo = Neo

 

[Bl4ckSunsh1n3]

100:1 says if tweets made as representations for "most developers" disliking it never happened, the negative impact would be far, far less.

The internet in this case serves as self-validation for any negative feedback and many of us devs have stated the same thing over and over again as answers to a zillion different questions and the bottom line remains the same.

Truth is there is a "most developers" but it has to be on the other side by multiple counts. Neo, if true, would not be happening unless a majority of devs were on board. Unfortunately, hyperbole rules this conversation regardless of what is the truth. We see no corrections, no further discussions, only incessant, childlike rants and a bunch of developers wading in through this mess only to be told "NUH UH! BUT BUT BUT" by everyone.

My point, as a dev myself, is that the general public has been more outspoken on this than a usual console release. I'm not referring to developers at all. Truthfully, in the end our opinion matters very little to some kid buying a PS4. I'm referring to feedback I've seen from consumers on reddit, neogaf, facebook, twitter, etc.

As a consumer, I don't like it either. For no other reason than I feel bad for people who purchased a PS4 recently. I also don't get a PS4 for free.

 

[Mr. Giggles]

Wait, isn't the OP of the post you're in right now a developer who did exactly that?

edit: well I guess one could argue gamasutra isn't a mainstream media elite since it's probably mostly followed by other developers...

I thought deeply of that as well. Although it was a blog post, and from the looks it hasn't gotten as much attention as a story on say a mainstream media outlet like kotaku or IGN

 

[Dubz]

I'm really torn in this. On one hand I would like to play a more powerful console. One the other hand I don't like spending $400 every 3 years. I can afford it, but I just don't want to. I guess I'll most likely just buy each NEO iteration and skip the numbered iterations. Kinda like I do with my iPhones.

 

[greenegt]

I've gone round and round on this topic, myself. I was initially resistant to the idea of iterative hardware releases, but the writing is on the wall and I have now come around on it. From a technical and business perspective, it does make sense to shift to an iterative model.

I had a little epiphany last night when I fired up my XB1. I'm perfectly fine with the current performance and I don't need to buy a theoretical XB1.5 right away. I had to change my old way of thinking about how console generations "should be". I can just continue on with my XB1 until I feel the upgrade is worth it.

My main concern now is for the devs. Game development is already a tough/risky business and I hope the platform holders are doing everything they can to smooth the transition the iterative model. Microsoft seems to be doing that with their UWP push. They need to make this as painless as possible so that quality does not drop for the baseline XB1 and PS4.

 

[otakukidd]

The problem with remastered is having to buy the game a second time to get whatever improvements the developer feels like adding. Forward compatibility solves that problem.

The problems with crossgen are more complicated. They're going to be substantially mitigated by numerous factors here: single software SKU supporting both products. Shared architecture, tools, and APIs. The games aren't "ported" in this case but rather you're almost certainly getting a single paramaterized executable that enables specific rendering paths but little else. The two systems in question represent only three years of technical evolution rather than an eight-year generational leap.

A developer isn't going to update a ps4 game to make it look better on ps5 for free years after the release of the game. Just having BC will reduce these not FC.

 

[HandsomeCharles]

Interesting, whats your opinion on having a tool set evolve as opposed to say, starting again with a new system architecture? Has this accelerated you to put out products quicker or has that been offset by the increase in QA since you support multiple devices

Well, before I go any further I should let you know that I'm still very early in my career (3 years in, so I haven't even worked through what you could call a "single" console iteration's time period) and there are many others out there that will have a much more informed opinion than myself. It's also that case that something that applies to mobile may not necessarily apply to a home console iteration, as some of the troubles are what you might call "bureaucratic" rather than technical.

To summarise though, it can be very convenient is some respects, as when a new device is released you don't have to change all that much to support it. Some releases incur more changes than others, but that's just how it goes.

It becomes difficult when you want to have a good player experience across a range of devices that can have up to 5 years between them, as despite your best intentions it can be incredibly difficult to get playable frame rates on the older devices whilst still trying to keep your games up to date with current visual standards. Obviously it's nice to have the extra horsepower to play with, but you're kinda castrated by the fact that you still need to ensure you're not alienating a large portion of your userbase who can't afford the latest device every year.

And as for QA, it takes ages. We've had points this year and last where we had builds ready to go for our various games, but we couldn't get them out due to the time it was taking to get them tested on all of the various devices/platforms that we support. I think what a lot of people don't realise is that you have to do the whole testing process for each platform, and believe me, that takes a long time!

 

[potatohead]

No argument from me on those points

In my eyes, you have a 2 choices

(A) sit, accept it and deal the with the out-come:

> Poorly thought out Season passes
> Poorly thought out DLC
> Poorly thought out microtransactions
> Pay to play online multiplayer

or

(B) you can do something about them:

> The all digital future and used games fuss (see XB1 and PS4 reveals)
> vote with your wallet

Personally, I'm a choice (B) guy, i'll be voting with my wallet and soon hope to move to the glorious PC master race....cause lets face it, they were right... about everything

That's fine, vote with your wallet is always a good choice.

I'm not a digital guy unless it's PC or mobile platforms either. All my PS4 games are disc, if there is a disc version.

 

[Marty Chinn]

Fair enough, although there must be devs or publishers not under NDA that have an opinion on the matter

Well anyone who has access to the Sony dev site is going to be under NDA.

 

[jhmtehgamr20xx]

Yes. Sega tried mid-gen upgrades with 32X and SegaCD and both failed miserably. Every generation has lasted at least 5 years.

The Sega CD was actually a moderate success, all things considered. No, it didn't do 1:1 w/ the MegaDrive/Genesis numbers and had a glut of bad FMV games, but it also had a good amount of good-to-great games and until Kinect and Wii Fit board, was the best-selling peripheral add-on for a home console.

Just sayin'...

 

[Bl4ckSunsh1n3]

Well, before I go any further I should let you know that I'm still very early in my career (3 years in, so I haven't even worked through what you could call a "single" console iteration's time period) and there are many others out there that will have a much more informed opinion than myself. It's also that case that something that applies to mobile may not necessarily apply to a home console iteration, as some of the troubles are what you might call "bureaucratic" rather than technical.

To summarise though, it can be very convenient is some respects, as when a new device is released you don't have to change all that much to support it. Some releases incur more changes than others, but that's just how it goes.

It becomes difficult when you want to have a good player experience across a range of devices that can have up to 5 years between them, as despite your best intentions it can be incredibly difficult to get playable frame rates on the older devices whilst still trying to keep your games up to date with current visual standards. Obviously it's nice to have the extra horsepower to play with, but you're kinda castrated by the fact that you still need to ensure you're not alienating a large portion of your userbase who can't afford the latest device every year.

And as for QA, it takes ages. We've had points this year and last where we had builds ready to go for our various games, but we couldn't get them out due to the time it was taking to get them tested on all of the various devices/platforms that we support. I think what a lot of people don't realise is that you have to do the whole testing process for each platform, and believe me, that takes a long time!

Each new device adds like 50% more QA work, yet our QA staff never grows by 50%. Sometimes it doesn't at all. That's an issue with this process.

 

[Mr. Giggles]

Well, before I go any further I should let you know that I'm still very early in my career (3 years in, so I haven't even worked through what you could call a "single" console iteration's time period) and there are many others out there that will have a much more informed opinion than myself. It's also that case that something that applies to mobile may not necessarily apply to a home console iteration, as some of the troubles are what you might call "bureaucratic" rather than technical.

To summarise though, it can be very convenient is some respects, as when a new device is released you don't have to change all that much to support it. Some releases incur more changes than others, but that's just how it goes.

It becomes difficult when you want to have a good player experience across a range of devices that can have up to 5 years between them, as despite your best intentions it can be incredibly difficult to get playable frame rates on the older devices whilst still trying to keep your games up to date with current visual standards. Obviously it's nice to have the extra horsepower to play with, but you're kinda castrated by the fact that you still need to ensure you're not alienating a large portion of your userbase who can't afford the latest device every year.

And as for QA, it takes ages. We've had points this year and last where we had builds ready to go for our various games, but we couldn't get them out due to the time it was taking to get them tested on all of the various devices/platforms that we support. I think what a lot of people don't realise is that you have to do the whole testing process for each platform, and believe me, that takes a long time!

Thank you handsomecharles, Mo devices mo Problems as it were

Given the inability of some dev houses to put out a stable 30FPS with current hardware I start to become increasingly concerned that we may start seeing much MUCH longer periods to release..

But I'm just a consumer

 

[GHG]

Each new device adds like 50% more QA work, yet our QA staff never grows by 50%. Sometimes it doesn't at all. That's an issue with this process.

That's not the device manufacturers fault (unless you happen to work for Sony). This is an issue you need to take up with your employer.

 

[Bl4ckSunsh1n3]

That's not the device manufacturers fault (unless you happen to work for Sony). This is an issue you need to take up with your employer.

It's also not my issue, specifically, so I have no say in it. It's an issue that gets passed on at some point though.

 

[HandsomeCharles]

Thank you handsomecharles, Mo devices mo Problems as it were

Given the inability of some dev houses to put out a stable 30FPS with current hardware I start to become increasingly concerned that we may start seeing much MUCH longer periods to release..

But I'm just a consumer

I always forget that's my username, "Charlie" is fine

I understand your concern. It's one that I share too, however, if the platform holder becomes much stricter on "playable requirements" then there may not be that much to worry about at all. Unfortunately the only similar experiences that we have to draw on tend for this not to be the case, with performance varying wildly across different devices.

Each new device adds like 50% more QA work, yet our QA staff never grows by 50%. Sometimes it doesn't at all. That's an issue with this process.

That's not the device manufacturers fault (unless you happen to work for Sony). This is an issue you need to take up with your employer.

I'd say that blame can lie with manufacturers. Often, supporting a "Top of the range" device isn't going to net you the most sales, but is absolutely vital if you want the support of the platform holder (e.g Front page promotions etc.). It's all to do with costs.

 

[gundamkyoukai]

It seem like what i was thinking would be right .
Porting going to be easy but Q&A is what going to take up more time and money .

 

[Jacksinthe]

My point, as a dev myself, is that the general public has been more outspoken on this than a usual console release. I'm not referring to developers at all. Truthfully, in the end our opinion matters very little to some kid buying a PS4. I'm referring to feedback I've seen from consumers on reddit, neogaf, facebook, twitter, etc.

As a consumer, I don't like it either. For no other reason than I feel bad for people who purchased a PS4 recently. I also don't get a PS4 for free.

The public has been outspoken due to a few pieces of hearsay by pundits. That sets the narrative to follow. Had the note been positive the reaction would differ. There was general and founded concern prior that got turned up to 11 in a heartbeat. My point for self-validation. We wouldn't have this entire thread or the zillion plus pages in Colin's thread if not for a few hyperbole laden comments made by he and others.

Since then, there have been more than one article posted on the net other than Chubigans but because the narrative was set - poof. Makes no difference at this point.

 

[Lady Gaia]

A developer isn't going to update a ps4 game to make it look better on ps5 for free years after the release of the game. Just having BC will reduce these not FC.

Some will, as evidenced by the release of Flower, Journey and other titles enhanced on the PS4 that were free for prior purchasers. Getting your name back out there and giving a new generation of potential customers a chance to buy the game based on buzz from existing owners rediscovering the title isn't a well-understood business model but it's not unprecedented, either.

In other cases it will be current PS4 owners buying Neo-enhanced titles starting this fall that will suddenly see improvements when they pick up a future console. So while it's not the same thing as a remaster I think it's a healthier model.

 

[Lemondish]

Not only that, If he's retired it makes his opinion more trustworthy if he has absolutely no attachment or skin in the game, and just giving his candid unbiased opinion.

No. No no no.

A guy who hasn't been in the game for 4 years is one thing.

But a guy who hasn't ever been in the game at all has nothing to say that we should listen to.

His opinion isn't worth any more than that of any other poster here.

 

[Mr. Giggles]

No. No no no.

A guy who hasn't been in the game for 4 years is one thing.

But a guy who hasn't ever been in the game at all has nothing to say that we should listen to.

His opinion isn't worth any more than that of any other poster here.

That's quiet a statement to make.

You're saying the former head of a large publisher has as much credit as an anonymous poster on a message board?!

 

[MogCakes]

The public has been outspoken due to a few pieces of hearsay by pundits. That sets the narrative to follow. Had the note been positive the reaction would differ. There was general and founded concern prior that got turned up to 11 in a heartbeat. My point for self-validation. We wouldn't have this entire thread or the zillion plus pages in Colin's thread if not for a few hyperbole laden comments made by he and others.

Since then, there have been more than one article posted on the net other than Chubigans but because the narrative was set - poof. Makes no difference at this point.

I completely disagree with this. The reaction was mixed from the get-go and just as intense if not more so. If anything it's lessened now that people have had time to think on it and vent; and it's still mixed, the lines have been drawn. It works both ways as well, GAF and the other gaming sites are echo chambers for opinions to fly and search for like-minded agreement. Don't lay the blame on pundits, the internet isn't a flock of sheep that follow the first public figure to speak.

 

[Bl4ckSunsh1n3]

The public has been outspoken due to a few pieces of hearsay by pundits. That sets the narrative to follow. Had the note been positive the reaction would differ. There was general and founded concern prior that got turned up to 11 in a heartbeat. My point for self-validation. We wouldn't have this entire thread or the zillion plus pages in Colin's thread if not for a few hyperbole laden comments made by he and others.

Since then, there have been more than one article posted on the net other than Chubigans but because the narrative was set - poof. Makes no difference at this point.

Yeah, I'm not buying that at all. Before the comments were made by he and others we had threads that were 50/50 on here and on reddit specifically. They might have thrown gasoline on a fire with their comments but, that thing was already burning by then.

 

[-ImaginaryInsider]

My point, as a dev myself, is that the general public has been more outspoken on this than a usual console release. I'm not referring to developers at all. Truthfully, in the end our opinion matters very little to some kid buying a PS4. I'm referring to feedback I've seen from consumers on reddit, neogaf, facebook, twitter, etc.

There was lots of push back on various boards when MS announced their online service wouldn't support dial-up. You name a major trend in the console space, from FPS to DLC, there have been months (if not years) of online hysterics and threats of boycotting...followed by mass acceptance and preorders.

Sony hasn't even officially announced this thing or begun to frame it to the public. After the we get the shiny E3 presentation is the better time to gauge reactions, currently there is a lot of confusion/speculation/misinformation to color people's perceptions and throw them into a tizzy.

 

[Jacksinthe]

I completely disagree with this. The reaction was mixed from the get-go and just as intense if not more so. If anything it's lessened now that people have had time to think on it and vent; and it's still mixed, the lines have been drawn. It works both ways as well, GAF and the other gaming sites are echo chambers for opinions to fly and search for like-minded agreement. Don't lay the blame on pundits, the internet isn't a flock of sheep that follow the first public figure to speak.

They were the first figureheads to spearhead the negativity. Until that point it was relatively balanced opinions between both camps from what everyone was reading. Since? Not so much.

If you don't believe that had anything to do with it, despite the fact that none of the threads even on here even made it close to the size of Colin's thread until after his tweet, I don't know what to tell you. It certainly stirred the hornet's nest and set the narrative.

Yeah, I'm not buying that at all. Before the comments were made by he and others we had threads that were 50/50 on here and on reddit specifically. They might have thrown gasoline on a fire with their comments but, that thing was already burning by then.

Read above.

-

With this, I am out of this thread. There's little reason to keep talking in circles.

 

[Papacheeks]

They were the first figureheads to spearhead the negativity. Until that point it was relatively balanced opinions between both camps from what everyone was reading. Since? Not so much.

If you don't believe that had anything to do with it, despite the fact that none of the threads even on here even made it close to the size of Colin's thread until after his tweet, I don't know what to tell you. It certainly stirred the hornet's nest and set the narrative.


Read above.

-

With this, I am out of this thread. There's little reason to keep talking in circles.

Actually not the case at all.

The information thread with Osiris Black's leaks that ended up mostly getting confirmed by Austin Walker couple weeks later is at 269 pages.

And when Osiris Updated it with more info as time went on, opinions got more heated as the word port and significant were used in describing the difference that would be seen between PS4/PS4NEO software.

You keep saying Sony wouldn't have made this move unless most developers were accepting of the prospect when history has shown us platform holders usually inform developers last.

Examples being Sega of America for a lot of their products, Sony of America for PS3 which had a lot of western developers scratching their heads.

 

[MogCakes]

They were the first figureheads to spearhead the negativity. Until that point it was relatively balanced opinions between both camps from what everyone was reading. Since? Not so much.

If you don't believe that had anything to do with it, despite the fact that none of the threads even on here even made it close to the size of Colin's thread until after his tweet, I don't know what to tell you. It certainly stirred the hornet's nest and set the narrative.

The negative sentiment wasn't spearheaded by anyone. There is no unified anti-PS4k group trying to dominate internet media. It's still a 50/50 split and the amount of arguing across the gaming sphere has actually decreased since the first rumors. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that the internet is all against the 4k and that Colin is somehow the leader of this negativity. Your perspective is skewed around his tweet and the thread about it.

With this, I am out of this thread. There's little reason to keep talking in circles.

Maybe step out of GAF once in a while. This is the only place where this topic is debated every day.

 

[i-Jest]

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.

Well with the current model, consoles were still hind the tech curb. Waiting years to release a new console only widened the gap. Unless we reach the point where users can swap out parts for better ones, consoles will remain behind the curb. That won't happen because the majority of people don't want to bother with all that technical stuff. Isn't that apart of what separates the console gamer base from the PC gamer base?

 

[Curufinwe]

A lot of developers probably didn't appreciate the extra work involved with Achievements and Trophies, either. How dare Sony and MS insist that they include them in their games.

 

[mrklaw]

Each new device adds like 50% more QA work, yet our QA staff never grows by 50%. Sometimes it doesn't at all. That's an issue with this process.

It can depend how you approach testing. I doubt you test every possible combination of PC components otherwise you'd need a whole bunch more testers. More likely you test on one, maybe two setups (AMD/Nvidia for example) and extrapolate results to give a confidence level that the game will work on other combinations of components. Potentially you could do the same with PS4K - do primary testing on PS4, with additional tests on PS4k for 4k specific features or for critical areas.

Of course TRC is likely to require double the time. But overall it shouldn't require 50% more work

 

[Dweebo]

"Games as a service" screams benefit for the developers but does not appeal at all to me as a consumer. Games that have adopted this strategy feel like there's no soul, like they're constantly dangling a carrot on a stick in front of your face. Trying to get you hooked into the game but not offering any significant pay off. I'm more open to the idea of a PS4K than I originally was but how it shifts the industry remains to be seen, it really could go either way as I've seen good pro's and con's from both sides for it.

 

[kyser73]

I guess we'll hear more from the developer side after May 10. Sony's DevCon event.

http://www.playstationlifestyle.net...ig-presence-sonys-2016-developers-conference/

If anyone leaks anything, which I'm sure they will. Maybe some stuff about the SDK or how Sony will be approaching the QA process.

Until then, or if there's another decent leak, I'm out if PS4Neo threads again as this one is now eating itself like the others.

 

[Marty Chinn]

Well with the current model, consoles were still hind the tech curb. Waiting years to release a new console only widened the gap. Unless we reach the point where users can swap out parts for better ones, consoles will remain behind the curb. That won't happen because the majority of people don't want to bother with all that technical stuff. Isn't that apart of what separates the console gamer base from the PC gamer base?

It's not about being behind; it's about being more behind because you're still dragging the weakest model along. The current most recently released console will never be the baseline with an iterative model. At least with the current model, whatever model comes out becomes the baseline.

 

[otakukidd]

Iterative consoles with fc won't solve the cross gen games. They will still be there with ps5 even if the ps4k plays ps5 games.

There will be over 40 million ps4 out there when the ps4k is released and they will still sell the ps4 after it is released. So let's say both consoles combined will sell 100 million and the sales split between now and the ps5 release the sales are 50/50. That means there will be 70 million ps4s out there. With that amount of ps4s out there theres no way there won't be cros gen games the first 2 years holding some ps5 games back like it's happening now.
So now you still have held back games cause of cross gen but it will be held back cause of the ps4k also for the rest of the gen.

 

[Moneal]

Iterative consoles with fc won't solve the cross gen games. They will still be there with ps5 even if the ps4k plays ps5 games.

There will be over 40 million ps4 out there when the ps4k is released and they will still sell the ps4 after it is released. So let's say both consoles combined will sell 100 million and the sales split between now and the ps5 release the sales are 50/50. That means there will be 70 million ps4s out there. With that amount of ps4s out there theres no way there won't be cros gen games the first 2 years holding some ps5 games back like it's happening now.
So now you still have held back games cause of cross gen but it will be held back cause of the ps4k also for the rest of the gen.

Why put a game on ps4 when ps5 comes out, unless your game easily fits within ps4 specs like some indies. You have an install base of 30 million ps4k. You target that and ps5. It solves the low initial install base risk problem. By then ps4k would come down in price to $299 or even lower. That makes upgrading easier for the 70 million ps4 owners.

 

[otakukidd]

Why put a game on ps4 when ps5 comes out, unless your game easily fits within ps4 specs like some indies. You have an install base of 30 million ps4k. You target that and ps5. It solves the low initial install base risk problem. By then ps4k would come down in price to $299 or even lower. That makes upgrading easier for the 70 million ps4 owners.

You do it cause it makes you more money even if you have to make sacrifices in the game like we have seen. Also if you are going to bring it down to ps4k why not just bring it down to ps4 cause then you would have over 2 times the install base.

 

[Moneal]

You do it cause it makes you more money even if you have to make sacrifices in the game like we have seen. Also if you are going to bring it down to ps4k why not just bring it down to ps4 cause then you would have over 2 times the install base.

Sales this gen have shown that early adopters were the big buyers. Ps4 and xbox1 games sold better than last gen versions as early as may 2014, just 6 months after release.

 

[David Ricardo]

Why put a game on ps4 when ps5 comes out, unless your game easily fits within ps4 specs like some indies. You have an install base of 30 million ps4k. You target that and ps5. It solves the low initial install base risk problem. By then ps4k would come down in price to $299 or even lower. That makes upgrading easier for the 70 million ps4 owners.

I don't think there are going to be PS4k games that don't run in the PS4 other than certain VR titles. If you are going to make the game run in the PS4k, why not go the extra mile and make it also available for the og PS4? It's the same architecture, same amount of RAM, same processor although slightly slower. The biggest difference would be in the GPU, but you can always lower some graphical settings and the resolution.

Also, what would you do with the discs. If there were hypothetical PS4k/PS5 games, would they be in the same disc? In a PS5 game box with a sticker saying 'PS4k compatible'. Or would the PS4k version have it's own disc with a sticker 'only for PS4k'?

I don't know, I don't think I see it.


The more I think about this, the more I notice it's going to be very difficult to explain to current PS4 owners without them feeling shafted.

Also, I don't understand how can somebody preorder PSVR now knowing that Sony is releasing a more powerful version of the PS4 at the same time. I see it as an indicator of PS4VR games looking bad, so that's why PS4k is there. If you buy PSVR, you are going to have to buy PS4k to fully enjoy it.

 

[Moneal]

I don't think there are going to be PS4k games that don't run in the PS4 other than certain VR titles. If you are going to make the game run in the PS4k, why not go the extra mile and make it also available for the og PS4? It's the same architecture, same amount of RAM, same processor although slightly slower. The biggest difference would be in the GPU, but you can always lower some graphical settings and the resolution.

Also, what would you do with the discs. If there were hypothetical PS4k/PS5 games, would they be in the same disc? In a PS5 game box with a sticker saying 'PS4k compatible'. Or would the PS4k version have it's own disc with a sticker 'only for PS4k'?

I don't know, I don't think I see it.


The more I think about this, the more I notice it's going to be very difficult to explain to current PS4 owners without them feeling shafted.

Also, I don't understand how can somebody preorder PSVR now knowing that Sony is releasing a more powerful version of the PS4 at the same time. I see it as an indicator of PS4VR games looking bad, so that's why PS4k is there. If you buy PSVR, you are going to have to buy PS4k to fully enjoy it.

The box would be the version of the lowest working model. If it ran on Ps4 it would be a Ps4 game. If it ran on ps4k but not Ps4 it would be a ps4k game. This would only be after ps5 release. Before that all would be ps4 compatible.

 

[dano1]

I don't think there are going to be PS4k games that don't run in the PS4 other than certain VR titles. If you are going to make the game run in the PS4k, why not go the extra mile and make it also available for the og PS4? It's the same architecture, same amount of RAM, same processor although slightly slower. The biggest difference would be in the GPU, but you can always lower some graphical settings and the resolution.

Also, what would you do with the discs. If there were hypothetical PS4k/PS5 games, would they be in the same disc? In a PS5 game box with a sticker saying 'PS4k compatible'. Or would the PS4k version have it's own disc with a sticker 'only for PS4k'?

I don't know, I don't think I see it.


The more I think about this, the more I notice it's going to be very difficult to explain to current PS4 owners without them feeling shafted.

Also, I don't understand how can somebody preorder PSVR now knowing that Sony is releasing a more powerful version of the PS4 at the same time. I see it as an indicator of PS4VR games looking bad, so that's why PS4k is there. If you buy PSVR, you are going to have to buy PS4k to fully enjoy it.

Did you even read the article....

 

[Lemondish]

That's quiet a statement to make.

You're saying the former head of a large publisher has as much credit as an anonymous poster on a message board?!

I'm saying a former founder of a development studio who has not been active in game development for many years and who has never seen this device or interacted with it in any way is just as reputable a source as any other poster here. By that I mean he's hardly an authority.

Which is probably why it's part of a throwaway piece. Though I'm starting to wonder how a message like that alongside a tweet that essentially reads like "my cousin's friend says" is carrying more weight in these parts than the voices of legitimate active developers.

 

[ThoughtsOfSpeaking]

Yeah, but when I bought PS2, PS3 and PS4 they weren't considered to be 'low tier' models, they were a five year promises, a unified box that will get all the necessary software, upgraded and perfected throughout console's lifespan and for the right price.

Nobody promised you anything.

 

[Lemondish]

Yeah, but when I bought PS2, PS3 and PS4 they weren't considered to be 'low tier' models, they were a five year promises, a unified box that will get all the necessary software, upgraded and perfected throughout console's lifespan and for the right price.

No such promises were ever made for one.

And second, nothing we've seen from the Neo leaks breaks this imaginary promise. The PS4 will still continue to be a unified box that will receive 'all the necessary software, upgraded and perfected' throughout its lifespan. Except now there's more options for those who want to spend more.

Nothing is being taken from you. Nothing is being taken from anybody. There's a whole new group of people that get a new option who previously didn't have it.

 

[2blackcats]

Did you even read the article....

I read the article and agree with them(bar the VR bit at the end).

I don't think there will ever be PS4K games that don't run on a PS4.

PS4/K games will run on all newer PlayStations going forward.

Nothing is going to require a dev to make a PS5 game run on older hardware unless they want to.

 

[Mediking]

I hate how some people consider people like me who don't wanna upgrade to be casuals. Another annoying thing from PS4K enthusiasts. It's either: "You're lying! You're gonna buy PS4K anyway!" which is NOT true. Or its: "You're a casual gamer if you don't think upgrade to PS4K"

 

[Marty Chinn]

Nobody promised you anything.

While not explicit promises, let's not pretend they're isn't an expected pattern that has existed since almost the entire existence of the console market.

 

[Razgreez]

I hate how some people consider people like me who don't wanna upgrade to be casuals. Another annoying thing from PS4K enthusiasts. It's either: "You're lying! You're gonna buy PS4K anyway!" which is NOT true. Or its: "You're a casual gamer if you don't think upgrade to PS4K"

I'm not seeing this anywhere, especially not in this thread. Your own insecurities creating that perception perhaps?

It's not about being behind; it's about being more behind because you're still dragging the weakest model along. The current most recently released console will never be the baseline with an iterative model. At least with the current model, whatever model comes out becomes the baseline.

Surely you know what you're typing is false. When the Xbox one and PS4 released the PS3 and 360 were still the lowest common denominators with the largest install bases. The only difference being that the architectures between PS4 and PS3 are so different that massive sacrifices had to be made to develop for both user bases.

So no, when a new console comes out it has never been 'the baseline'. That comes with time only this time the similarity between architectures means exploiting the extra grunt on offer should be orders of magnitude simpler without compromising the stability of the game on the less powerful console

 

[kyser73]

I hate how some people consider people like me who don't wanna upgrade to be casuals. Another annoying thing from PS4K enthusiasts. It's either: "You're lying! You're gonna buy PS4K anyway!" which is NOT true. Or its: "You're a casual gamer if you don't think upgrade to PS4K"

I think we're going to need some actual quotes from the thread for this here point.

I don't consider those not planning to upgrade casuals. I think there's some truth in the 'you'll do it anyway' statement as a couple of posters - maybe Wapplew, Admiral Lord Woolfington(?) - have said as such.

Dammit. I said I wouldn't be back...