Support NeoGAF

[ArkhamFantasy]

Because it really doesn't mean better looking games for everyone, it means that probably, as anecdote proves, that we'll start to see worse ports to entice upgrades. .

1.Why are third party publishers purposely making their games worse so Sony can sell a different sku

2,Why does Sony care if you buy a Neo or a PS4 when they are the same system with the exact same library?

 

[Daft Punk]

I really hope people didn't take that mobile phone cycle as a confirmation Sony is switching to a yearly thing. That would be suicide.

 

[gundamkyoukai]

Because it really doesn't mean better looking games for everyone, it means that probably, as anecdote proves, that we'll start to see worse ports to entice upgrades. Just like perfectly capable smartphones get the short end of the stick with OS updates or how some games are bad optimized on the lesser platform when we deal with crossgen.

This model could also make this gen longer or eliminate them. Having no more gens basically means buying overpriced hardware with a focus on selling you specs instead of performance.

The pros are very few, but if you are the kind of consumer to upgrade your phone and PC every year, then this is probably right down you alley. I would make a bet that most console users don fall in this category, just talking out of my ass and common sense here.

We were going to get worst ports as time goes on anyway .
Even more so from 3rd parties , some of us now have the option not to live with that .
Also who say the systems going to be overprice , competition will make sure they don't .

 

[SeanTSC]

I really hope people didn't take that mobile phone cycle as a confirmation Sony is switching to a yearly thing. That would be suicide.

I think that's a really outlandish jump to make and I doubt many people will make it. Personally, I'm okay with 3 year cycles, but just barely. 4 years is the sweet spot imo and 5 is the max I ever want to see.

I could see 3 years becoming the norm with this and I'd be okay with that as long as there was proper and complete backwards compatibility with all future models and forward compatibility for 1-2 iterations.

 

[Keihart]

1.Why are third party publishers purposely making their games worse so Sony can sell a different sku

2,Why does Sony care if you buy a Neo or a PS4 when they are the same system with the exact same library?

They wouldn't be making the PS4 version worse, they would be making sacrifices to focus on the fancier version and making the base one the afterthough.

Sony shouldn't care, but if they didn't they wouldn't be releasing a new expensier system, since they are, they probably want to make more money out of hardware, chaging fundamentally the focus of console business IF the model works.

 

[KingK]

But this fundamentally fails to understand -why- I like console gaming. I don't want to skip 'in between machines' and feel like I'm having a sub-par experience. The whole reason I buy consoles is so I can have 5-10 years of the same 'best' experience all my friends are having, knowing we'll all eventually get a nice big jump into the next gen.

I'm certainly not going to buy the 'cheaper interim console' that released a few years before [basically, the 4.5 in a couple years]. That would feel like throwing away money if I suspected the PS5 was on the horizon.

Basically, iterative consoles takes away the very reason I buy consoles in the first place. And this is coming from someone who bought a PS4 at launch. Most consoles owners don't even buy into a gen till year 3 or 4, and I think this could ostracize them even more than it does me. It's one thing buying a cheap PS4 halfway through a gen but knowing it's still king of the hill for another 3-5 years... it's quite another knowing it's already outdated.



I don't think the majority of people buying into a gen in year 3 or 4 are looking for that 'new factor'. They are looking for the cheap price for hardware that still is 'new gen' and relevant. As soon as the PS4.5 is released, the PS4 is no longer the 'best console', and it will potentially ostracize those that still haven't bought into the gen [which is the traditional majority of buyers].

I think early adopters don't really realize how -slow- the buy in to a gen is. While my PS4 may be 'old' by now, in a traditional gen most people who will own a PS4 still haven't bought it yet! But they will, and that's in part because it's going to be 'new' till the PS5. Iterative steals that.

Those people aren't suddenly going to want a ps4.5, either, because the whole point of waiting 3/4 years was for the price breaks while still getting that 'new' machine.

Yes to all of this. This is exactly how I feel (just bought a PS4 in November). Literally everybody I've talked to in real life about this feels the same way. I don't know anybody who's excited for this idea outside of the internet.

 

[DVCY201]

I wonder what this means for branding, in terms of games and etc. And is the successor to Neo a formal PS5 then?

 

[Jacksinthe]

I think that's a really outlandish jump to make and I doubt many people will make it. Personally, I'm okay with 3 year cycles, but just barely. 4 years is the sweet spot imo and 5 is the max I ever want to see.

I could see 3 years becoming the norm with this and I'd be okay with that as long as there was proper and complete backwards compatibility with all future models and forward compatibility for 1-2 iterations.

Best case scenario.

4 is my sweet spot, too. With BC and forward compat I would have no problem waiting a bit after launch or buying day 1 and games would be ready and waiting.

 

[DeepEnigma]

They wouldn't be making the PS4 version worse, they would be making sacrifices to focus on the fancier version and making the base one the afterthough.

Sony shouldn't care, but if they didn't they wouldn't be releasing a new expensier system, since they are, they probably want to make more money out of hardware, chaging fundamentally the focus of console business IF the model works.

Or, the normal sacrifices they would have to make to get an optimal target on the PS4 like they always have been this gen, would be there to be enabled by the Neo, vs. lost in an unseeable (outside of PC) abyss forever.

Man, the glass half empty responses in here.

 

[Omnistalgic]

Be one of us. You know you want to. Resistance is futile! ^^

Lol...NO

 

[DarkLordMalik]

This new iterative model is going to be a game changer. I have always heard of people complaining about issues with their console hardware. Who seriously keeps their one console for the 4-5 years?

I have friends who start worrying about their console once it ages a little and look forward to replacing it as soon as they can with a better model/bundle offer. So how exactly is a better and improved hardware worse than changing consoles? I will never get people who think like that =/.

This iterative model is a god send TBH. If it offers full backwards compatibility then just wow. The thought of having my PSN library with me and benefiting from upgrades makes me all giddy. Never liked PC hardware for what it is worth so please don't talk about it here. Not to mention PS4 has a shit ton of exclusives and Japanese support and keeping it after console upgrade is a dream come true. Finally we are nearing the end of Remasters.

I am honestly all in with Xbox Scorpio and Neo provided we get the following:

1. No $600 consoles, that is strictly no buy territory because of price and likely DOA.
2. Backward compatibility on new consoles and forward compatibility for those who choose to remain with old hardware for a while.
3. Updates/Improvements for old games that were released before the new hardware.

 

[IbizaPocholo]

I really hope people didn't take that mobile phone cycle as a confirmation Sony is switching to a yearly thing. That would be suicide.

I want that method.

 

[Keihart]

Or, the normal sacrifices they would have to make to get an optimal target on the PS4 like they always have been this gen, would be there to be enabled by the Neo, vs. lost in an unseeable (outside of PC) abyss forever.

Man, the glass half empty responses in here.

There are a lot of games made without even considering higher PC specs.

And yes, you put it quite right that it is a half empty glass response, because the good faith shouldn't come from the consumer but the otherway around. Atleast that's how i see it.

 

[Omnistalgic]

I get it because I game on both PC and console. I have to upgrade my PC, so I want my console to last a span greater, it is why I buy them, to know that with one purchase I will be running games as good as they can be on the system. This is now no longer true, and so a console does not serve it's purpose to me.

All you people that don't understand this are seemingly as confused as I am that you don't get it. It's a simple concept. People want to spend once and be good. People don't want to spend once then have inferior shit immediately afterwards. Consoles were safe in this regard, because revisions did not make games any better. Now they do, and that fucking sucks.

Yeah still find the mindset petty to put it lightly. If PS4, regardless of what happens with Neo, is supported until 2020 with new games, everything else is self inflicted feelings.

Literally makes no sense what you are saying, consoles were once "safe" like wtf? Don't buy the thing and game on as you normally would. In fact, that's exactly what millions of people will do!

 

[DeepEnigma]

There are a lot of games made without even considering higher PC specs.

And yes, you put it quite right that it is a half empty glass response, because the good faith shouldn't come from the consumer but the otherway around. Atleast that's how i see it.

Good faith? Good grief!

 

[gundamkyoukai]

There are a lot of games made without even considering higher PC specs.

And yes, you put it quite right that it is a half empty glass response, because the good faith shouldn't come from the consumer but the otherway around. Atleast that's how i see it.

Games that don't think about high PC specs should run on PS4 rather good .
So i don't see why NEO would make devs gimp them .

 

[Perfect Cha0s]

That is where I disconnect. No fucks given about games being inferior to PC versions, but tiers on within the same brand is a life altering event. It's like consoles are looked at some form of socialism. "We're all the same!"

Yeah, I mean, I guess I get it, but I think it's so silly.

With how poorly some (some!) games run on consoles already, is it really a stretch to say you weren't exactly getting the best experience available to begin with?

Idk, the lines some people have drawn seem so arbitrary.

 

[Omnistalgic]

But this fundamentally fails to understand -why- I like console gaming. I don't want to skip 'in between machines' and feel like I'm having a sub-par experience. The whole reason I buy consoles is so I can have 5-10 years of the same 'best' experience all my friends are having, knowing we'll all eventually get a nice big jump into the next gen.

I'm certainly not going to buy the 'cheaper interim console' that released a few years before [basically, the 4.5 in a couple years]. That would feel like throwing away money if I suspected the PS5 was on the horizon.

Basically, iterative consoles takes away the very reason I buy consoles in the first place. And this is coming from someone who bought a PS4 at launch. Most consoles owners don't even buy into a gen till year 3 or 4, and I think this could ostracize them even more than it does me. It's one thing buying a cheap PS4 halfway through a gen but knowing it's still king of the hill for another 3-5 years... it's quite another knowing it's already outdated.



I don't think the majority of people buying into a gen in year 3 or 4 are looking for that 'new factor'. They are looking for the cheap price for hardware that still is 'new gen' and relevant. As soon as the PS4.5 is released, the PS4 is no longer the 'best console', and it will potentially ostracize those that still haven't bought into the gen [which is the traditional majority of buyers].

I think early adopters don't really realize how -slow- the buy in to a gen is. While my PS4 may be 'old' by now, in a traditional gen most people who will own a PS4 still haven't bought it yet! But they will, and that's in part because it's going to be 'new' till the PS5. Iterative steals that.

Those people aren't suddenly going to want a ps4.5, either, because the whole point of waiting 3/4 years was for the price breaks while still getting that 'new' machine.

And this is just a ton of conjecture. You don't know how millions of people are going to react and feel and no one cares how your or my circle of friends feel about iterative consoles. They need to come out and the market will decide what it wants. People buy system later in the gen because they are cheaper, what does it being "new" have to do with anything? Iterative steals it feeling new, I think it being untouched in a box would suffice?"This system is cheap and has 3000 games and this particular one looks amazing? I'll take that please." A consumer with this mindset is going to feel Ps4 isn't "new" anymore because a more powerful one is out? I don't believe you.

You are talking some hardcore mindset like that's the reasoning mom and dads go Christmas shopping and buy consoles, "this is going to last 5 years more because Sony said its a 10 year plan!"said no Dad ever...

We don't know how people as a whole will react, and you definitely aren't speaking for anyone but yourself. People lease cars and want new ones every year, people want to upgrade phones every year, TVs every time a resolution bump happens, etc..some people are the exact opposite. It's one thing for us to discuss how we feel, but the generalizing is probably why there's so much disagreement.

There's just way too much "this is bad for us gamers" instead of "I personally don't feel good about this".

 

[Keihart]

Games that don't think about high PC specs should run on PS4 rather good .
So i don't see why NEO would make devs gimp them .

Im seriously not talking about inmediate effects, as in i see something like this is to change the platform a lot in the future, probably console exclusive games and even first party games would only run as intended on the more recent model.
If phones and PC games optimization are anything to go by, it'll become very poor optimized and the better hardware won't even be utilized to it's potential.

At least reading responses on Neogaf. and since this is aimed at the "hardcore gamer" it seems my stance on this it's not an outlandish one.

 

[SeanTSC]

Im seriously not talking about inmediate effects, as in i see something like this is to change the platform a lot in the future, probably console exclusive games and even first party games would only run as intended on the more recent model.
If phones and PC games optimization are anything to go by, it'll become very poor optimized and the better hardware won't even be utilized to it's potential.

At least reading responses on Neogaf. and since this is aimed at the "hardcore gamer" it seems my stance on this it's not an outlandish one.

I think that the whole sky is falling "oh noes hardware won't be optimized at all" stuff is malarkey. Keeping the same basic X86 architecture and APU setups will mean this isn't that much of a concern and comparing it to the mobile landscape where everything has a huge churn factor is ridiculous. Phones are basically built to be disposable and next to no one cares about programming for backwards use in the mobile market. How console games are developed is drastically different and they're not just going to shit out awful versions of PS4 games.

The cynicism here astounds me. I give game developers a hell of a lot more credit than that.

 

[CosmicQueso]

Love when people use the term "optimized" as if they know what it means. Good stuff.

That is where I disconnect. No fucks given about games being inferior to PC versions, but tiers on within the same brand is a life altering event. It's like consoles are looked at some form of socialism. "We're all the same!"

It defies all reason.

 

[DarkLordMalik]

All those naysayers who are worried about getting left behind with subpar ports when PS4 Neo releases just need to wait and see. A lot of the complaints feel like an overreaction when this type of iterative model is still shrouded in mystery.

People shouldn't compare this iterative hardware to smartphones, who have like dozens of hardware configurations making forward compatibility useless and a headache.

 

[tskeeve]

Yep, done with consoles. The "smartphone model" is laughable in the console space. Consoles are not subsidized, nor are they as vital to everyday life as smartphones.

 

[tekumseh]

As much as I hate to say this, until Sony implements an external storage solution, I'm probably out on future PlayStations.

 

[platocplx]

Yep, done with consoles. The "smartphone model" is laughable in the console space. Consoles are not subsidized, nor are they as vital to everyday life as smartphones.

Smartphones arent subsidized anymore. People pay full price now.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Smartphones arent subsidized anymore. People pay full price now.

Nor are they essential to have the latest and greatest.

 

[TrackZ]

I really don't think people are going to upgrade their consoles on the same cycle that they upgrade their phones, but we'll just have to wait and see.

I would in a heartbeat. I buy a new phone mode every year. I'd do the same with consoles if they were available in a similar manner.

 

[Skux]

With the pace technology is moving, it just doesn't make sense for Sony to sit on the same PS4 tech until 2019. There's VR coming and it needs new hardware. There's 4k video and the PS4 needs new tech to keep its spot as a premiere media device. There's 14nm GPUs with massively improved power efficiency and substantial performance increases.

PC gaming has far eclipsed PS4 hardware and PS4 multiplatform titles make too many compromises just to hit 1080p30 if they're lucky. Meanwhile PCs will soon be hitting $500 price points for VR capability. The longer Sony waits, the more customers they'll lose to gamers looking for the best experience.

 

[Callibretto]

They wouldn't be making the PS4 version worse, they would be making sacrifices to focus on the fancier version and making the base one the afterthough.

Sony shouldn't care, but if they didn't they wouldn't be releasing a new expensier system, since they are, they probably want to make more money out of hardware, chaging fundamentally the focus of console business IF the model works.

that is going to happen regardless of PS4 Neo existence. near the end of last gen, even before PS4 and XB1 is announced, there are more and more games with sub 720p HD and below 30fps average games. developer simply get more and more ambitious in their next AAA project, coupled with PC keep getting stronger every year. developer will focus their effort on getting the best looking graphics as possible and downgrade it to the weak old console.

even Naughty Dog who is one of the best developer in the world when it come to their tech and only develop exclusively on PS3, they become more ambitious with The Last of Us and while it's not sub HD, the framerate for TLoU is noticeably worse than their previous games.

this will definitely happened to PS4 too even if Neo didn't exist.

 

[tskeeve]

Smartphones arent subsidized anymore. People pay full price now.

I live in Asia, where they still are subsidized.

 

[The God]

With the pace technology is moving, it just doesn't make sense for Sony to sit on the same PS4 tech until 2019. There's VR coming and it needs new hardware. There's 4k video and the PS4 needs new tech to keep its spot as a premiere media device. There's 14nm GPUs with massively improved power efficiency and substantial performance increases.

PC gaming has far eclipsed PS4 hardware and PS4 multiplatform titles make too many compromises just to hit 1080p30 if they're lucky. Meanwhile PCs will soon be hitting $500 price points for VR capability. The longer Sony waits, the more customers they'll lose to gamers looking for the best experience.

This isn't going to stop anyone from going to PC. It'll most likely have the opposite effect.

 

[StereoVsn]

I hope you find some way to still enjoy them

The solution is clearly PC gaming!

I am not sure I am capable of understanding mentality of some people in this thread. PS4K does not invalidate your gaming investment. If anything, iterative consoles make the most expensive thing in gaming, i.e. games, last longer, as you will have full backward compatibility ala Steam on PC (I sure hope so). Plus there is a good chance that most accessories will work cross consoles so all those fight sticks, wheels, controllers, etc... will work if one gets PS4K or PS5.

I have a decent gaming PC but it's already outdated even though i have a nice video card. I don't tear my hair out because someone can run Witcher 3 10-20 FPS more then me as long as I have decent enough experience. I can play Witcher 3 at 30 FPS at 1080p with a GTX 750 and can play it at 4K and 60 FPS with GTX 1080. You don't see people lamenting that those bastards at AMD and Nvidia are upgrading their video cards. Hell, if anything, people are bitching that they are not upgrading fast enough and everybody is pissed off at Intel for their CPU upgrades or at AMD for not having a decent product on the market.

Who the fuck cares that someone can run a game better then you if you dont feel like upgrading? You bet your ass that developers will not want to drop 50-60 million user base of PS4 (by the time Neo comes out) in order to capitalize on PS4 Neo. Yes, graphics will look better but you bet that your next COD, Ass Creed, Horizon, Whatever will run just fine on PS4. For Japanese games, you will still be able to play new Naruto/Guilty Gear/Whatever when PS5 comes out on PS4 still.

 

[RedSwirl]

If 2 or 3-year upgrade cycles fail I at least hope console manufacturers resolve to do the same thing but on 5 or 6-year cycles. Maintaining the same architecture, operating system, and software library would still be a huge plus even if they stuck to traditional console generations.

Even if the mid gen upgrades don't exist, won't the OG consoles still get poor performance games in a year or 2 anyway? I would imagine that's normal, but I mostly played the PS3/PC last gen so the performance difference was more than noticeable(considering the PS3 ports seemed like an afterthought).

Last gen was particularly painful in this regard. Starting around 2011 the consoles started to dramatically lose relevance as far as multiplatform game performance goes. One of the main reasons we're getting so many remasters is probably because a lot of 2011 and 2012 games had no business running on PS3 and 360 in the first place.

 

[jdmonmou]

I would in a heartbeat. I buy a new phone mode every year. I'd do the same with consoles if they were available in a similar manner.

You're one of the few. The smartphone release cycle is no longer as profitable as it once was.

Sony and Microsoft switching to iterative hardware is just bad business in my opinion. Not many people will buy these consoles if the cheaper options are still available and an even smaller amount will upgrade if both versions play the same games.

My prediction is that these iterative consoles will be a one time experiment and when NEO and Scorpio are failures Microsoft and Sony will go back to the drawing board to come up with some new ideas to make money.

 

[joecanada]

They wouldn't be making the PS4 version worse, they would be making sacrifices to focus on the fancier version and making the base one the afterthough.

Sony shouldn't care, but if they didn't they wouldn't be releasing a new expensier system, since they are, they probably want to make more money out of hardware, chaging fundamentally the focus of console business IF the model works.

Or they will make less money but want to stay relevant in an ever changing landscape and this offers insurance against other companies getting the big jump on them

 

[Falchion]

I would sign up for an Xbox Edge program where I get the latest system and first party software for a certain amount each year.

 

[TrackZ]

Best case scenario.

4 is my sweet spot, too. With BC and forward compat I would have no problem waiting a bit after launch or buying day 1 and games would be ready and waiting.

That's too long IMO. I'd like to see 2 years. 3 at the most. Technology moves too fast now to go longer.

 

[jdmonmou]

With the pace technology is moving, it just doesn't make sense for Sony to sit on the same PS4 tech until 2019. There's VR coming and it needs new hardware. There's 4k video and the PS4 needs new tech to keep its spot as a premiere media device. There's 14nm GPUs with massively improved power efficiency and substantial performance increases.

PC gaming has far eclipsed PS4 hardware and PS4 multiplatform titles make too many compromises just to hit 1080p30 if they're lucky. Meanwhile PCs will soon be hitting $500 price points for VR capability. The longer Sony waits, the more customers they'll lose to gamers looking for the best experience.

Just to play devil's advocate...why did Sony sell PS VR pre-orders to people who thought they would be getting a good experience with the original PS4?

And I don't think Sony was in danger of losing customers. The PS4 has strong sales right now and VR has some time to go before it really takes off and becomes mainstream.

I would prefer a shorter PS4 lifecycle than an iterative release. Sony should just wait a year or two and release the PS5. We would see a greater technical boost and it wouldn't be held back to keep parity with the PS4.

 

[StereoVsn]

You're one of the few. The smartphone release cycle is no longer as profitable as it once was.

Sony and Microsoft switching to iterative hardware is just bad business in my opinion. Not many people will buy these consoles if the cheaper options are still available and an even smaller amount will upgrade if both versions play the same games.

My prediction is that these iterative consoles will be a one time experiment and when NEO and Scorpio are failures Microsoft and Sony will go back to the drawing board to come up with some new ideas to make money.

It won't be yearly. New consoles coming out every 3-4 years with full backward and one gen forward compatibility is not a bad idea. You will have PS5.5 in 2022 or 2023 being able to play all the PS4 games. That's not bad at all. Your PSN investment (or Live) will be more solid. Look at the stupid PS1/PS2 compatibility situation with PS4 or with all the remasters happening. That won't need to happen with the iterative upgrade and common OS.

 

[TLZ]

Each new gen for PlayStation had a x16 increase in system memory.

- PS1: 2 MB
- PS2: 32 MB
- PS3 : 512 MB
- PS4 : 8 GB

By 2017, Sony won't be able to reach that goal for PS5. That is why the high-end PS4 Neo will be there to fill the gap of the hardware and graphics advances until we reach the exponential jump in memory and components and techs by 2020 to allow such trend of increase.

You think by 2020 PS5 will have 128 GB ram?

lol.

 

[Keihart]

Shorter gen and no forward compatibily is the best way, but not the model we deserve aparently.

 

[Faenix1]

probably gonna BS myself into thinking I need the Neo, and selling my current PS4 to my sister for cheap. Even though I don't feel like I got my $400 out of it.

 

[jeffram]

You're one of the few. The smartphone release cycle is no longer as profitable as it once was.

Sony and Microsoft switching to iterative hardware is just bad business in my opinion. Not many people will buy these consoles if the cheaper options are still available and an even smaller amount will upgrade if both versions play the same games.

My prediction is that these iterative consoles will be a one time experiment and when NEO and Scorpio are failures Microsoft and Sony will go back to the drawing board to come up with some new ideas to make money.

I'm not buying your argument, especially not your source. Your article is about market saturation and shows that cellphones grew until the point that everyone who could afford a smartphone has one. Cellphones are a hyper competitive product and the market leader, growing or not, makes a tremendous amount of profit.

This move will allow the console space to accommodate different types of buyers. It's good business. It's the business of every other consumer electronics device.

 

[R10Neymarfan]

You think by 2020 PS5 will have 128 GB ram?

lol.

No but, 4GB HBM = 6 GB of GDDR5
Therefore
32GB of HBM = 128GB GDDR5

Easily doable in 2020 with HBM2 possibly HBM3

 

[Tarin02543]

So this means a PS5 will never happen? Instead we will get PS4.999999999

 

[potatohead]

But what is the point of having people double dip on a console when they make little to no money from console sales. They would rather have them buy more games with that money and earn more.

That's true.

But in another way, if someone is willing to buy a second console from the same generation, it means you have a very, very committed customer.

That's something to die for in the digital age of online users and account systems.

Lol...NO

Y u no recognize sarcasm

So this means a PS5 will never happen? Instead we will get PS4.999999999

Nobody knows. It might. But it might not. Schrodinger's cat they say.

 

[potatohead]

I'm not buying your argument, especially not your source. Your article is about market saturation and shows that cellphones grew until the point that everyone who could afford a smartphone has one. Cellphones are a hyper competitive product and the market leader, growing or not, makes a tremendous amount of profit.

This move will allow the console space to accommodate different types of buyers. It's good business. It's the business of every other consumer electronics device.

Good post. Bolded for educational value.

 

[The First Guardian]

My biggest issue with PS4 is its noise and general poor build quality. I don't want a jet engine in my room. I'm really happy with Sony's software support. Both games and Os features. I'd replace my PS4 with a Neo if they make a better hardware, even though I neither have a 4K TV nor am interested in PSVR.

 

[jdmonmou]

I'm not buying your argument, especially not your source. Your article is about market saturation and shows that cellphones grew until the point that everyone who could afford a smartphone has one. Cellphones are a hyper competitive product and the market leader, growing or not, makes a tremendous amount of profit.

This move will allow the console space to accommodate different types of buyers. It's good business. It's the business of every other consumer electronics device.

My bet is that the amount of people who actually will buy an upgraded Xbox or PS4 is actually very small. I'm pretty sure it will be small for Xbox because not many people bought the original Xbox One and with Project Helix you may never need to buy another console from Microsoft again if you have a Windows 10 PC. Those people who deeply care about graphics have by and large moved to PC.

 

[Nirolak]

Maybe if you are talking about the UK or USA market it's 80%.
Also not being a year plus late was also a big factor .

Proposal: The amount of people on the forum who are very concerned that their PS4 will no longer be the most powerful PlayStation within six months and/or that the Xbox Scorpio will be more powerful than both their PS4 and the PS4K in 2017 suggests that hardware power is a really notable concern for many enthusiast gamers.