LookAtMeGo
Member
Fantastic post chubigans. I agree with everything you said.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Case for the PS4K: an important, and necessary, change for the industry.
- Thread starter chubigans
- Start date
shadowsdarknes
Member
I agree. I don't think business models of the past have to follow the same rules as today's.
I'd rather an agile company.
I'd rather an agile company.
Jacksinthe
Banned
Thank fuck!
Bolivar687
Banned
Well-written but I'm skeptical the games as a service ecosystem works for the console audience. Manufacturers are losing a powerful marketing tool - the brand new generational launch and the big price drop. How excited can you get about a mildly iterative console that plays the same games?
This kinda sounds like what led to the U.S. game industry crash - too many undifferentiated boxes on the market that play the same games.
This kinda sounds like what led to the U.S. game industry crash - too many undifferentiated boxes on the market that play the same games.
How bad is it for xbox one owners, right now its the lcd. Games on it perform at a similar level to ps4, with some reduction in resolution in most cases. How would this be different?
I think many of Nintendo's statements about their next hardware, even before the codename of NX was mentioned, indicate that it could very well be iterative. The whole concept that Iwata laid out, i.e. more than two form factors, regardless of the performance of each system, combined with the Supplemental Computing Device patents, would indicate that NX may very well encompass multiple game systems, be iterative, allow optional SCDs for better game performance and span generations of hardware (if not outright replaced by iterations). All NX platforms running the same OS, the same ecosystem for users, having the same development environment for devs, etc.
While these things aren't confirmed, everything said so far, and Nintendo patents, indicate this is direction Nintendo is going.
BiGBoSSMk23
A company being excited for their new game is a huge slap in the face to all the fans that liked their old games.
Agree with everything you're saying, Chubigans.
Those people who keep shouting the negatives have both feet planted firmly in the past.
It's a necessary change, and it's gonna move things along a lot smoother and with less bottlenecks.
A tiered hardware model benefits pretty much everyone, especially developers.
I say bring it.
Those people who keep shouting the negatives have both feet planted firmly in the past.
It's a necessary change, and it's gonna move things along a lot smoother and with less bottlenecks.
A tiered hardware model benefits pretty much everyone, especially developers.
I say bring it.
Ding ding ding.
The console market is already in decline from last gen, this type of thing could to make it worse.
Yeah, mid-gen upgrade seems like a logical and practical approach. BUT, I'm really gonna miss those first party exclusive games 6 years down the line where we see our "last-gen" console doing things we never thought possible.
shadowsdarknes
Member
Even if NEO were to release this year, I'd still expect PS4 ports to continue to outperform XB1 ports.
If the PS4 was going to get short changed in favor of Neo, then the games could fall behind the XB1. But I don't see that happening.
If the PS4 was going to get short changed in favor of Neo, then the games could fall behind the XB1. But I don't see that happening.
ShinMaruku
Member
I can't say I want games as a service by a bunch of people who don't understand what service is.
Because there will not be tech in two years that will be a leap beyond the PS4. That is not on the roadmap. It does not exist and will not exist. Colin is completely 100% wrong on that one. Now, five or six years from today...maybe.
It's definitely not as exciting as a proper next-gen console reveal, and I don't think we're looking at 40 million PS4Ks sold in three years. But that's not really the goal of all this to begin with, because for the first time it actually makes sense to think of this as a family of consoles, rather than single console lifetimes.
As far as the game industry crash, that happened for a host of reasons that aren't really represented of what's going on today. An unsuccessful PS4K wouldn't crash PS4 sales, since you could theoretically assume that the PS4 is cheaper because of its presence on the market, and will spur sales on its own.
Sad Affleck
Member
I haven't settled on an opinion on the matter. A more powerful console as an option for those who want it is cool, but I see two important issues worth discussing.
One, what happens to traditional console generations? If they are dead then where is the cutoff point? Will games practically be cross-gen for all eternity from now on?
Two, should the owners of the original PS4 give up on the idea of developers taking better advantage of their hardware over time? What is the incentive to optimize when you can just brute force better visuals through hardware?
One, what happens to traditional console generations? If they are dead then where is the cutoff point? Will games practically be cross-gen for all eternity from now on?
Two, should the owners of the original PS4 give up on the idea of developers taking better advantage of their hardware over time? What is the incentive to optimize when you can just brute force better visuals through hardware?
Well said, this is exactly how I feel about the whole situation. I'm not furious/jealous/doomsday prophesying or anything. I mean, I have a launch day PS4 and a 20th anniversary sitting in this room. I've always been on board with Sony and I know I'm probably leaving some awesome exclusives behind. With that said, I have a gaming PC for this type of gaming model and I have no interest in maintaining a console in the same way.
ArkhamFantasy
Member
I've gone back and forth like crazy on this, looking at the pro's and con's.
One thing i dont understand is why they made such a minor upgrade, if you want me to upgrade, make it a substantial upgrade. They are making devs put in all this extra effort to get a 2nd sku up and running and its only going to be a small difference.
One thing i dont understand is why they made such a minor upgrade, if you want me to upgrade, make it a substantial upgrade. They are making devs put in all this extra effort to get a 2nd sku up and running and its only going to be a small difference.
Refreshment.01
Member
Yet again... Spoon fed version:
Design for basic model.
Extra bell and whistles for the higher end SKU.
People, this time around you got yoursleves closed PC's. The gap between the two is closing in more ways than usual.
Jacksinthe
Banned
I'm sure devs will be happy they don't have to focus as much on breaking themselves over tools and squeezing every last bit of power out and instead focus on the games.
family_guy
Member
You can still utilize the hardware at its full potential and then scale down for the weaker predecessors. For example, Rise of the Tomb Raider Xbox One vs Xbox 360. What I like about this new business model is that when you upgrade you can replay your existing games with a fresh coat of paint. Like say when you upgrade from that GTX 660 to a 980, you can crank up the details and experience your games at better fidelity and framerate. If they update UC4 for PS4k that will be a real treat for people who upgrade and get to re-experience it.
The power jumps like we have seen in the past are growing farther and farther apart. A 10 fold jump in power over the ps4 wont be available at a cost the market will bear till the ps4 is 9 or 10 years old, unless we get some wild breakthrough.
Sad Affleck
Member
Good point.
This is reliant entirely on the publishers going back and supporting old games to take advantage of the extra power, and I very much doubt AAA publishers are going to make a serious effort at that while they're trying to get people to spend $100+ on whatever new title + season pass they're trying to sell that year.
wapplew
Member
Some said tech grow too fast, console have to be iterative to keep up, some say tech grow too slow, console power jump won't be as big.
Which is it?
Price. They learned their lesson with the ps3, keep it under $500.
AcceptableGhost
Member
I can't really see anything but positives for iterative hardware for consoles if done right (it should have very long compatibility forward and back, ideally a developer in 2026 should still be able to push out a game with compatibility for PS4 onward if they are making a low spec game). As someone who has been almost completely turned off of consoles for the past 6 years it definitely gets me somewhat interested.
I will say though it is hard to believe that the market can sustain 3 console manufacturers with somewhat pricey hardware, iterated on every couple of years, with different software ecosystems that are nearly identical outside of a handful exclusives each.
I will say though it is hard to believe that the market can sustain 3 console manufacturers with somewhat pricey hardware, iterated on every couple of years, with different software ecosystems that are nearly identical outside of a handful exclusives each.
UnwrittenZero
Member
More like tech is growing fast incrementally but not moving very fast in leaps and bounds I think.
Nikodemos
Member
Except Sony and MS's main target isn't parents. Parents have stopped being their primary market since circa 2012. The only one still actively courting parents is Nintendo.
Sony and MS have taken a good long look and realised their best chance is with the 25-35 demographic, since they compose the bulk of video game players and are financially independent (very important point Nintendo seem to have missed).
Tech is growing fast, but costs aren't going to come down fast enough for consoles to keep up, this model will help because there will be premium priced hardware to lessen the gap sooner.
ArkhamFantasy
Member
The regular version will be way under 500 though. If you arent someone who really cares about having full 1080p you can get the cheap model. If you are someone who wants all the bells and whistles, you get the 600 dollar version.
I just think its a waste of resources for the devs to spend time optimizing and doing Q&A on two machines that are almost the same.
Stone Ocean
Member
Yes. No.
It sounds like an OK idea in theory, but I'm pretty skeptical of this notion that games will continue to run well on the PS4 and the PS4K will just get the extra bells & whistles. If PS4K sells well, I don't think it will be long before we start seeing releases that are barely playable on the PS4 regardless of Sony's stated policy. The flood of half-broken games we get every holiday season ought to disabuse anyone of the notion that they can really trust the certification process. There is no reason to think that things will go better when there are two hardware targets rather than one.
TGO
Hype Train conductor. Works harder than it steams.
You want the industry to fall?
_Spr_Drnk
Banned
As I posted in a similar thread, have the ps4 and the ps4k be compatible, then have the next iteration be only compatible with the ps4k, until the next platform.
With a 3 year console release cycle, you then essentially have a maximum 6 year life cycle for early adopters, which is pretty much the status quo now.
Silent Chief
Member
I can't wait to see how this will fly in Japan.
autoduelist
Member
This absolutely pushes me away from gaming as a hobby. I used to build custom PCs, and spend hours upon hours optimizing and customizing my OS, etc.
I moved to consoles because I just don't care about that anymore. I want to go to Amazon/Target/BB/wherever, and pick up a game, and know I'm getting 'the best' experience [even if I know my current console isn't even close to 'best' tech].
I wanted out of the tech rat race -- I can justify dropping ~400 every 7-10 years. I have zero interest in chasing this. I don't want to have a subpar PS4, but I don't want to have to go drop more money. I was perfectly content being the target audience consoles were aimed at.
Oh well. I won't be particularly sad if I leave gaming altogether, so maybe this is for the best for me.
I moved to consoles because I just don't care about that anymore. I want to go to Amazon/Target/BB/wherever, and pick up a game, and know I'm getting 'the best' experience [even if I know my current console isn't even close to 'best' tech].
I wanted out of the tech rat race -- I can justify dropping ~400 every 7-10 years. I have zero interest in chasing this. I don't want to have a subpar PS4, but I don't want to have to go drop more money. I was perfectly content being the target audience consoles were aimed at.
Oh well. I won't be particularly sad if I leave gaming altogether, so maybe this is for the best for me.
UnwrittenZero
Member
That would be the end of gaming for me, can't stand pc's don't even own them I prefere a closed system any day of the week. I have a ps4 and an iPad and I'm happy don't need anything else it is zero fus. I don't have to do jack shit I can get right to playing games instead of jacking with shit all the time. I don't have time to jack with stuff there is fishing to do and shit to build.
Crayon
Member
I don't even know if it's going to be that big a deal. What really matters is when do we get games that no longer run on ps4? Will ps5 games run on neo? Etc. It'd be nice for Sony to be forthcoming with the general roadmap for this stuff at e3. Right now I'm not interested in upgrading to a neo because I don't know what I would be really buying.
Outside exclusives, you weren't getting the best experience anyway.
This isn't really a fair comparison. The New3DS was significantly cheaper, and handhelds are inherently more appealing devices to upgrade as by taking them around with you everywhere you go (as some people do), they can show signs of wear over time.
Bolivar687
Banned
Good points but I'm not worried about the PS4K selling 40 million units in 3 years, rather if the next revision sells 40 million in 3, and how does Sony then explain which games the 2013 PS4 can keep up with? What happens when revisions no longer have an easy, compelling sales pitch and understanding compatibility requires more research than the mass market consumer can stomach?
That's why I think the game industry crash analogues is poignant if not a 1:1 match.
xaosslug
Member
i think it's part older gamers feeling 'too old for dis shit' and unwilling to change w/ the times, and part dreams of super powerful next gen consoles & reality of pricing colliding.
the reality of the situation is that in order to remain @ that $399 'sweet spot' these consoles just will not be able to be super powerful anymore. That's a reality - regardless of how deep Microsoft's pockets are as a whole - and this is how SONY is dealing with it, imo.
incremental updates, selling at or below cost.
the reality of the situation is that in order to remain @ that $399 'sweet spot' these consoles just will not be able to be super powerful anymore. That's a reality - regardless of how deep Microsoft's pockets are as a whole - and this is how SONY is dealing with it, imo.
incremental updates, selling at or below cost.
Maneauleau
Member
I still think there was room for doing PS4 -> PS5 and scrap PS4.5 with PS5 releasing in 3 years from now and being 2 times more powerful than PS4.5.
With PS4 games still working on PS5 so the brand loyalty is there and the early buyers are not pissed off too. And when they finally upgrade they get a much more powerful console.
Otherwise if you have to spend 400€ every 3 years you might as well buy a PC especially when OP said 1st party games don't matter as much as before.
Or there must be a way to trade in your old system or get a discount if you upgrade or something...
I don't know I might be too old school or not visionary enough but to me it does not sound like a good thing except for Sony of course.
With PS4 games still working on PS5 so the brand loyalty is there and the early buyers are not pissed off too. And when they finally upgrade they get a much more powerful console.
Otherwise if you have to spend 400€ every 3 years you might as well buy a PC especially when OP said 1st party games don't matter as much as before.
Or there must be a way to trade in your old system or get a discount if you upgrade or something...
I don't know I might be too old school or not visionary enough but to me it does not sound like a good thing except for Sony of course.
MiamiWesker
Member
Not one mention of the main issue which is when games stop working on older models. Generations make it super clear what works when. You buy a console and you are promised all games work for 5 years or more, it's easy to understand and in the end saves us lots of money. Start doing this slow increase in power and these exclusive games will start to stagger. Oh you want FFXVI sorry you need a PS5.5. Two years later want to play GTAVI sorry you need a PS6. Oh but buy our lifetime upgrade service for hundreds a year and get free upgrades.
Or the opposite may happen, everyone is so scared of abandoning a user base that they don't optimize the games for the best hardware to make sure older models can play it. Then we never see that giant leap between gens.
Or the opposite may happen, everyone is so scared of abandoning a user base that they don't optimize the games for the best hardware to make sure older models can play it. Then we never see that giant leap between gens.
AcceptableGhost
Member
Honestly if you are used to using an iPad with iOS then iterative consoles would probably be even simpler then that.
Silent Chief
Member
No, not really. The difference between the early adopters and the others is mostly related to the price of the console. Why would anyone wait a year to pay full price? So when my target price is achieved there's a new console being talked about? Now you only have the early adopters and the people who buy the games in the discount bins at $10. The main audience who accounts for 80% of the installed based has been eliminated.
autoduelist
Member
Most people don't even buy into a console gen into year 3 or 4. But even then, they are buying into the current gen. This model now supposes they'd be willing to buy into the -previous- gen in year 3 or 4. That does not fly for many of us. Those people buying into the gen in year 3 or 4 (or later) were still spending several hundred dollars, were still buying into 'current gen', and would have the expectation it would remain current gen for years to come.
Now they're supposed to spend hundreds of dollars on something they know will be obsolete in a couple years, and isn't even 'current gen' when they buy it? I know I won't be doing that. I bought my PS3 in year 3.... and while I bought my PS4 at launch, I did so expecting it to last an entire gen as 'current gen'.
Iterative consoles are great for those that like to chase tech, but push away those that don't. However, the core base of console owners obviously do not care about buying chasing tech - rather, they buy consoles that were already dated at launch 3-4 years later! That is the crux of the issue.
_Spr_Drnk
Banned
As an over 40 gamer who has seen a lot of systems come and go over the years, I can assure you I'm totally good with an incremental upgrade future, if (and a big if) it's handled well. So far, plans for the Neo seem OK. We will see.
Similar threads
- Locked