stargateheaven
Member
problem?
-
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.
PS4 Pro Won't Support 4k BluRay
- Thread starter blastprocessor
- Start date
problem?
killertofu
Member
https://www.playstation.com/en-ae/explore/ps4/ps4-pro/
The first byline literally says "Dynamic 4k gaming and 4k entertainment". "Intensely vibrant gameplay, stunningly sharp movies and incredible detail in every moment".
It's flabbergasting how anyone can defend this.
Oh sweet I can go tell everyone that the switch is a GAMES machine so they stop asking for media apps.
What is really being defended though. No consumer right was violated. Sony simply brought a product to market. Every product has potential compromises depending on the consumer. I didn't get a PRO but not because UHD gate but simply because it's not a big enough leap in tech for me. Should I make thread complaing Sony made a grave mistake not including a 1080?
BradleyLove
Member
Exactly. The entitlement in this thread is astounding.
Sony released a product and if you don't like it, don't buy it. Simples.
Sony don't owe anyone a thing. MS don't owe anyone. Nor do Ninty. Vote with your wallet if UHD is so important to you.
LyleLanley
Banned
It may not be enough to sway someone from purchasing a Pro, that doesn't mean it isn't shitty. I'm considering buying a Pro so I have something to use with my 4K TV and it would have been really nice to be able to watch the highest quality movies without purchasing another device.
killertofu
Member
Yes because a 1080 is within the same grasp as adding a UHD player.
It's not entitlement. I am voting with my wallet (by not buying a Pro until it goes down in price because of lack of 4k Bluray), but I can still air out my grievance at Sony's piss poor decision. I thought this was a forum?
Do you noticed that they mentioned GAMING at first, hm?
And also tweet from OP :
Well. Yeah. It is a game console first and foremost. What's your point? All I'm saying is that it was a bad call on their part. It seems like unnecessary cost savings and a poor decision if they're calling it a "Pro" machine, ESPECIALLY when the Xbox One S has it in their system, for a cheaper price.
To them it is necessary cost savings and stay under 399$. You didn't build the console.
It's way better to add more FLOPS or RAMs for games for 15$ than put a stupid UHD drive. It was a right decision.
The Artisan
Member
this is probably what it is, then. man it must really suck if you buy an expensive TV that comes with HDR, only to see that the HDR options aren't really what HDR is supposed to be.
i got you. nothing I have here is HDR so I can't tell the difference
Comparing a Pro to an Xbone S is like comparing a car and a bycicle though.
LyleLanley
Banned
Does the car or bicycle play 4k BluRays?
I think Sony learned their lesson from PS3's relatively low attach rate and ps+ subscription rate. PS3 was a media beast, sacd, blu-ray (while physical media still had a pulse, bandwith was at a premium, and 1080p was a night and day difference over 480p).
Sony is doing well enough to not need to entice customers into the ecosystem that aren't part of their long term strategy. People who buy a console for the primary reason of being a media player are far less likely to buy multiple games per year or subscribe to gaming services. Sure it can boost your numbers, and sure some of those buyers will be profitable, but those resources could be used to attract more profitable buyers.
The estimated incremental cost per 4K drive per system was $15, at the time the slim launched they were at what? 40m? If they expected to sell another 60m consoles at that time, that's incurring $900,000,000 in expenses. It's a near billion dollar gamble on physical media. Think about how many AAA games they could fund With that? I think that's a more profitable route for the market leader.
Sony is doing well enough to not need to entice customers into the ecosystem that aren't part of their long term strategy. People who buy a console for the primary reason of being a media player are far less likely to buy multiple games per year or subscribe to gaming services. Sure it can boost your numbers, and sure some of those buyers will be profitable, but those resources could be used to attract more profitable buyers.
The estimated incremental cost per 4K drive per system was $15, at the time the slim launched they were at what? 40m? If they expected to sell another 60m consoles at that time, that's incurring $900,000,000 in expenses. It's a near billion dollar gamble on physical media. Think about how many AAA games they could fund With that? I think that's a more profitable route for the market leader.
Caayn
Member
I think that putting multiplayer behind a PS+ paywall is a bigger reason for the PS+ subscription increase.
The PS3 was also the first digital video connection for a lot of consumers (HDMI vs Scart/Compsite/Component/etc. Which alone was also a decent upgrade.
unapersson
Member
You're going to bat for one particular disk format but there's no reason why 4k downloads couldn't be offered. It's not as though people aren't downloading huge games rather than streaming them.
Do you noticed that they mentioned GAMING at first, hm?
And also tweet from OP :
You wanna go into the Switch threads and tell everyone complaining about the lack of Netflix and an internet browser that it's a GAMING machine? It's the exact same argument.
BradleyLove
Member
How is it shitty or piss-poor? Who is it shitty or piss-poor for?
Now, ignoring the fact that Sony didn't even have a consumer-level UHD player available when Pro launched, its had minimal impact on console sales. The PS4 platform is growing and the gap is increasing. So that removes the "piss-poor" from the equation.
Shitty? Is it shitty Nissan don't offer a QashQai with. 3.2 V6 turbo? No, so why is it shitty for Sony to not offer UHD? By that rationale, MS are shitty for not offering a console with the same GPU power as PS4.
It's not shitty, it's not piss-poor and it's not anti-consumer. I wanted a Pro with more CPU/GPU grunt but I didn't get it. Does that make it a shitty/piss-poor decision? No. It is what it is.
Time to move on, people.
Musky_Cheese
Banned
For the I am voting with my wallet comments... good. So did everyone else.
You are just in the minority.
Consumers decided $399.99 would be the most they would be willing to pay.
The majority decided price point was the biggest factor.
How did the Xbox sell at $499? The PS3 at $599?
Adding the drive would raise the price.
Thankfully those who think the drive would have been a benefit to the majority of consumers or Sony, don't run the company. The company would be bankrupt
You are just in the minority.
Consumers decided $399.99 would be the most they would be willing to pay.
The majority decided price point was the biggest factor.
How did the Xbox sell at $499? The PS3 at $599?
Adding the drive would raise the price.
Thankfully those who think the drive would have been a benefit to the majority of consumers or Sony, don't run the company. The company would be bankrupt
If you spend enough money sure, it can have a stripper pole too if you throw enough money at it.
Still not the point if my comment though.
This is obviously true but mainly it is an argument for selling identical products. It gets more complicated when we talk about different products. And yes a pro with 4k bluray is actually a different product.
Sometimes I wonder if this forum (and more surprisingly even Sony?) realize that the pro aint the mass market product ps4 were even though it costs the same. A $250 console that plays the same games will always sell more than a $400 console. You sell pro on features and power, not amazing value. No 4k bluray was a mistake!
Scorpio must be a space ship then.
Head.spawn
Junior Member
A spaceship beast.
pretty done
Member
closer to a mo-ped
Spaceship would be a SLI 1080ti gaming PC.
Wait nvm I didn't see the PS4 was the car. OK Scorpio is like an F350.
That is exactly what it's purpose is!
It was never meant to be mass market.
Andrew House has repeatedly stated this.
If you are all that serious about 4K Blu-ray a better argument would be made about the possible "responsibility" Sony has towards the medium (unless physical media sales continue to slide or show slow growth). They have a dedicated Blu-Ray player on the way with an MSRP of $299.99 which makes the value of the One S even more important.
Why is no one discussing the recent impairment charge supposedly related to a write down in home physical media?
A. The ability to play Blu-rays has licensing fees involved, it is not free to them to offer that functionality. Wii U?
B. The Xbox One S could have skipped it but in their position improvement was a must. They saw and needed the value proposition so they added it.
C. Sony used the PS3 to push Blu-ray sales, Why would not value doing the same here?
Simple... Sony got caught slipping and MS found a great value proposition.
Straight and to the point, they didn't expect Microsoft to do it and got caught late in the cycle. Production or development of the PS4 Pro was to far ahead to change course. They figured they could save money on the system this way, and instead they are losing in that sole aspect. But ask yourself how many people are buying a console solely for movies no semantics or goal post moving involved? Not enough to offset any gaming priority. For both MS and Sony. Switch launched without an MP3/MP4 player I might add? Different companies prioritize things differently.
Also what is the purpose of this thread outside of bashing a six month old decision. Unfortunate yes. However this does not reduce the value of the Pro due to buyer circumstance. I have not even downloaded Netflix to my Pro.
I'm not defending Sony it sucks and is inconvenient to anyone who planned on a converged purchase but damn move on. The sole purpose of this thread is past it's due date. Nothing but chastising here.
This necro-bump is on you @The Artisan. Can't even watch Walking Dead no more.
It's the exact same argument only if you ignore the need for different hardware, and the fact that the media apps like NetFlix are generally written and maintained by the owners of the third party service.
So really it's a completely different argument.
Chronospherics
Member
I mean, it's a bit different, because here the drive would have incurred a cost on the system.
Here, we can't have our cake, and eat it, we most likely couldn't have had $399, and UHD.
It's not the same argument with the Switch, because it's not the same trade off. The Switch can have netflix, and it the system itself can be the same.
The reason the Switch is missing netflix is likely because the product was rushed to launch within the present fiscal year. They will get netflix later, but it's likely that it wasn't realistically possible to support the launch in time.
The Switch has a gross lack of software support broadly right now. It's evident that developers did not get their dev kits as promptly as with other software launches.
So while the counter argument may be the same in that 'it's a gaming machine', so it doesn't matter, that argument in the Switch's case is respectively, far weaker as there's no need to trade anything off the hardware to make it happen.
The Switch will receive a netflix app and it won't cost more as a result. Therefore, the 'it's a gaming machine' argument holds less water. The PRO would have required more expensive hardware to receive UHD blurays, so the same argument is a little more compelling here.
I think it's a shame that consumers weren't given the choice. If they can make a model with a more expensive, larger capacity HDD, then it'd be nice if we could have gotten a slightly more expensive system with 4K Bluray too. Personally 4K bluray would not have been useful to me, as I use my PRO on a 4K monitor and it's not hooked up in the lounge with the home cinema.
theangrypirate
Member
As a pro owner, this was very disappointing news. It was a bad decision by Sony. I still bought one though because the gaming upgrades are great.
The Artisan
Member
I didn't force you to discuss in the thread bro, in fact I've had some decent discussions with others also.
edit: I can barely watch the show either.
Eh who knows, probably be just a faster car imo.
Eh who knows, your logic seems kinda skewed imo.
I doubt the Scorpio will be some magic 4K 60fps device, it'll be better than a pro by 30 ish%?
That's not a spaceship.
That's an Audi to a Volkswagen.
LukasTaves
Member
Why it would though?
The pro chip is smaller than ps4 was at launch, so it's very likely less expensive.
8gb of gddr5 are certainly way cheaper now than it was at launch and 1gb of ddr3 as well.
The only increase seems to be the HDD, though I'd think that after three years it's likely the cost remained very close even with the higher capacity.
But given the other reductions I wouldn't be surprised if they could offer a 4k drive and still cost less than ps4 did at launch.
its 45% gpu difference, 4gb additional ram, faster ram, better cpu and newer gpu technology
Musky_Cheese
Banned
Would you be so kind as to tell us what the margin for the PRO is? And how much making the PRO a UHD player as well?
Now it's getting embarrassing.
I don't think you've got a firm grasp on the differences between a vehicle and a bicycle.
SEGAvangelist
Member
Woah! We're comparing gaming consoles to bikes and cars and spaceships instead of Dragonball Z characters. What twisted version of NeoGAF is this?
Right. I don't buy it would cost more. Might be 15 dollars less profit, but throw the consumer a bone.
Do you ?
We're veering dangerously off-topic here, but a bicycle is most definitely a type of vehicle.
Err you don't have to buy as much as Sony don't have to make something that specifically you want.
Times 15 dollars by 30 million units or so.
That's the true cost to bring a feature maybe 1 million of those would use very occasionally.
pretty done
Member
I imagine all 4K TVs have the same function though. This is just 4K media playback through USB right?