Support NeoGAF

[MegamanPoweredUP]

TLDR
The whole point of me buying a console is to play games without worring about hardwere. If PS4K becames a thing I'll go PC only.

 

[ninjablade]

I disagree solely due to the fact that you are creating tiered and substandard experiences for some who cannot afford the latest and greatest across the board.

I'm frankly shocked at how many are trying to pass this off as necessary and good for the console consumer as opposed to a sheer profit grab for hardware manufacturers.

There is a reason developers are also speaking out against this in secret. There is a reason you are able to get 10 years of development on Xbox 360 and go from a game like Call of Duty 2 to Grand Theft Auto V. For conversation sake, lets say little Timmy bought his PS4 for $399 at launch. Less than 3 years later he will theoretically buy improved PS4 hardware for $399. He is spending $800 for a console generation. Not that he doesn't have to buy it. But Sony's goal will be to get a lot of loyal adopters to double dip. Why wouldn't you go PC then? The one sheer advantage of consoles over PC has been closed and never changing architecture. This allows developers to improve and innovate with each sequel or subsequent game. Just look at the first Uncharted on PS3 versus the Last of Us.

Now Sony has said that PS4 has to be the primary system, that experiences beyond resolution and framerate and graphics cannot happen. But they're still essentially relegating those now almost 38 million+ PS4 buyers to second tier status. For devs in an industry where they are already outsourcing tons of work to other studios, where they can barely have games run on Xbox One and PS4 without massive day one patches and bugs and exploits, they now have to develop for hardware that could be ever changing every few years.

I get the advantages. This is the N64 expansion pak to the next level. But let's not pretend this is great for gamers as consumers or the console industry. This is solely about a giant corporation who wants to use declining hardware sales and leverage its brand into higher profit margins with new consoles. Apple and phone manufacturers are highly successful with convincing consumers that they need the next years phone because of the 2 megapixel camera increase and slight change to gpu etc.

But these are just my thoughts. Let's see what happens. The industry is going to change whether we like it or not.

Why would little Timmy keep his og PS4? I'm sure Sony will do a trade in for 200$ for ps4k or little Timmy could always sell his ps4 and the generation might cost him 600$ for 6 years, and that's if he wants to buy both consoles at launch.

 

[RedAssedApe]

:thumbs up:

TLDR
The whole point of me buying a console is to play games without worring about hardwere. If PS4K becames a thing I'll go PC only.

how does ps4k change that? your ps4 will still be supported by every game released in the foreseeable future.

 

[Pokemaniac]

on pc games don't stop working on a hd7850 just because polaris releases.

If they're going to have a new system every 3 years they need to retain at least one upgrade cycle worth of forward compatibility, anything else would just royally screw over consumers.

If you're going to have 3 year console cycles that cut off compatibility every 3 years that would just be ridiculous

I didn't say that everything needed to be PS4k only going forward. Only that not even allowing the option of PS4k only stuff is shortsighted.

 

[Boke1879]

The big problem with PS4k is that Sony isn't allowing it to replace the PS4 like they should be. Forcing everything to be compatible with the base system is only holding the PS4k back in a misguided attempt to keep the PS4 relevant for longer. Sony is trying to move to the iterative model without really fully accepting the consequences of doing so.

This isn't to replace the PS4. It's for people who want a bit more out of the system and all the reasons Chubs said. The base PS4 imo will still be the preferred model because it'll be cheaper.

 

[GameAddict411]

I think the nearest thing we have seen in the past in the gaming industry is the move from the 3DS and the new 3DS. The latter is marketed to play the same games as the 3DS, but more enhanced. That's all fine and dandy, but when you look how the recent 3DS games play on the original hardware, you would appalled. I saw one game that was lagging behind and dipping below 20FPS, but the new hardware is maintaining 30FPS. I wouldn't be surprised if that happen with the PS4 down the line. Developers will shift focus on the new hardware, while shipping a barely playable version for the old console. We also have to consider the advantage of someone playing on the PS4K compared to the PS4 on online games. If the performance difference is big, then it won't be fair anymore. The new hardware will cause a fragmentation no matter what Sony does to combat it.

 

[Jacksinthe]

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.

No and no.

Devs will still cater to older boxes but I would set a hard limit. You can still play all the games for 5 years or more like a traditional console but you get tech upgrades quicker.

As for not abandoning hardware, again, a hard limit should be put in place so 10 years from now we won't be making games for PS4, as it would be anyhow.

The iterative approach allows us to keep to a 6 year cycle before phasing out old tech and (hopefully) with similar architecture and tools we devs won't be needing to "cross-gen" any longer with wildly different architectures spending our time on refactoring everything for a new box.

People have been worrying about devs but similar tools and architecture will lead to faster productivity down the line. Not to mention what do you target when you are nearing the "end" of a generation? That gap of time where you can technically release for either but you need to plan 2 years out, not knowing if the new hardware will sell and if it does and everyone hops on board, will they buy your game on old hardware or expect you to launch on the new hotness?

With this we can create knowing we have dedicated timelines and write for a platform as a whole, knowing both early and new adopters are in, increasing the reach on that platform. I'd personally like to see my game on PSN 10 years from its launch next year so people can still buy and play it. That's revenue that isn't locked to a window.

There are too many positives IF the design and execution is knocked out of the park. Anyone thinking otherwise, AAA developer or consumer, needs to get their ass out of immediacy mode and think about the future of the industry and how this is a win/win for the dev and the consumer.

I'm both so I'm down as fuck, so long as the tools and hardware interoperability are up to task.

 

[viHuGi]

I knew this had to happen, Smartphones and Pc have been doing this and it is the natural evolution of consoles, you will still get the same games but at lower resolution, frames etc.

Per example I have a 700€ Smartphone and most my friends have mid range phones, they still play the same games just worse but do they care? No.

Plot twist: I don't game on my Smartphone xD

 

[viHuGi]

TLDR
The whole point of me buying a console is to play games without worring about hardwere. If PS4K becames a thing I'll go PC only.

Your ps4 will still run all the games at 30 or 60 fps and mostly 1080p,whats the problem? It's not like your ps4 will die lol most ps4 sales will still be from OG Ps4 specially since they might drop to 299/249e.

 

[Pokemaniac]

This isn't to replace the PS4. It's for people who want a bit more out of the system and all the reasons Chubs said. The base PS4 imo will still be the preferred model because it'll be cheaper.

It shouldn't replace the PS4 now, but it should eventually. That's how iterative devices should work.

 

[RedAssedApe]

We also have to consider the advantage of someone playing on the PS4K compared to the PS4 on online games. If the performance difference is big, then it won't be fair anymore. The new hardware will cause a fragmentation no matter what Sony does to combat it.

there are already things out there that can already give people advantages (i.e. console players having m+kb support on some games, custom controllers, better internet, etc.). this is a non-issue. pc gamers have had to deal with the same thing for as long as online play was a thing.

 

[Go_Ly_Dow]

I'm confused tho, since the Neo's CPU is lagging behind already, then surely it will become obsolete quickly and a subtanial upgrade will be required soon?

 

[EatinOlives]

Still don't see the need for constant refreshes if devs won't even be able to utilize the hardware spec bumps because it's a refresh.

A much better idea would be to have the PS5, no 4.5, but still be a spec bump albeit a generational-leap one, with the architecture remaining essentially identical. That way devs can actually use the spec bump and there's no need to refactor everything for a new console. Plus you'd get full built in backwards compatibility.

 

[Markoman]

I agree with some posters in this thread in regard to possible negative impacts on game design.
Those who say "where's the problem there are many cross-gen games that run scaled-down on PS3 + Xbox360?"
That's exactly THE problem already. Take a look at this gen in particular - is there any game which in it's core concept couldn't have be done on last gen consoles?

I'll give you some examples for "core concepts":
1. MGSV's feels like it's game design was held back by the restrictions that came from
a) it was also planned for last gen console
b) 1080/60fps was a priority at least for PS4
People were complaining about the emptiness in it's open world. Well, I guess the PS4 wasn't able to maintain1080p/60fps + more going on in the open world of MGSV. AND developing for so many plattforms lead to the kind of rushed product we got.
2. CPU bound games.
Certain games aren't about scalable assets, textures or options for AA, lightning and other graphical gimmicks.
Games like the Total War series (control issues aside) would hardly work properly on current consoles, because they're very CPU heavy games. Just look at AC:Unity - one major concept of that game- and what made it next gen besides better graphics- were large crowds. Well, as it turns out the twin consoles were really struggling with keeping performance up just because of this.

I absoutely can see where people are coming from: I feel like developers will be restricted by this model, because certain technical aspects which were promoted in generational jumps, are going to dissapear. I'm not talking about stuff like lightning, resolution, AA, texture qualitiy, polygon count... - those are features that do nothing for gameplay or core game design. Stuff like NPC density, advanced physics + AI, destruction physics (don't mention CD3 until it's released and working as promised!) will basically stay on the same level unless the support for the oldest model is going away. This doesn't sound like a major issue on first sight, but I feel this is an invitation for devs to take the safe route and keep ambitions in line with what the older plattform is able to run.

 

[Pingoreous]

TLDR
The whole point of me buying a console is to play games without worring about hardwere. If PS4K becames a thing I'll go PC only.

If your main reason to move is to avoid worrying about hardware? well you moving to the wrong place. PC is all about hardware. Also for me I have a very powerful PC and i just don't enjoy playing on a keyboard and mouse anymore. I mostly play online games and plugging in a console controller would put me at a big disadvantage.

 

[Boke1879]

It shouldn't replace the PS4 now, but it should eventually. That's how iterative devices should work.

Oh no doubt. Down the line there will be priority shifts. Down the line and over time the base PS4 will be phased out of retail, and I assume that will be when the "ps5" comes out. It keeps a base/cheaper model on shelves as well as a premium/upgraded version.

 

[Elandyll]

Good read, and a welcome bit of level-headedness in a sea of knee jerk reactions and hyperbole.
Tbh I am neither for or against the PS4K as I have no 4K TV and no intention to get one in the near future, and I also think it is in Sony's best interest to continue to keep the development on PS4 "mainlined".
If, as it is reported, Sony has given the word to keep the PS4 front and center, prohibits PS4K exclusives and intends to market it as the 4K "premium" version of the PS4, I am ok with that.

In the end, I think it's just a product that will carve itself a higher end niche in response to an existing demand for higher spec, same games, which probably comes from the PC world (and both MS and Sony went out of their way already to design PC-like consoles to start with).

 

[Yoday]

I agree, and I've been saying the same thing since MS started the conversation. The two main reasons both MS and Sony are going this route are the slowing tech progression and customer retention. Resetting your user base every cycle is bad business, and it's bad for developers. It means risking the loss of a large portion of your customers to the competition, and it means less potential customers for games. This new console cycle is better for every party involved. Console makers get customer retention, publishers get a larger and more consistent user base to sell to, and customers, get to retain compatibility of their games going forward.

Most of the arguments I have seen against this shift come off as knee jerk reactions based around entitlement or far reaching hypothetical scenarios. Developers aren't going to suddenly abandon or screw over a user base of 60mm players with shit performance, nobody actually needs to upgrade with every new iteration, and if anything this shift means any single console will likely be supported for longer than ever before.

 

[Memory]

Good write up but I disagree, there is nothing that benefits my gaming habits. In fact a lot of the things you highlighter as positives (shift to games as a service etc) are what I would call negatives.

In any case more and more Japanese dev's are bringing games to PC, while consoles (sans Nintendo) are getting fewer exclusives each year. If iterative consoles are the future then I'll be sticking to my PC exclusively from now on.

 

[Demanufacture]

Your ps4 will still run all the games at 30 or 60 fps and mostly 1080p,whats the problem? It's not like your ps4 will die lol most ps4 sales will still be from OG Ps4 specially since they might drop to 299/249e.

This is the best case scenario..let's hope. But I have a feeling there will be some consequences for the PS4 with some of the attention on the 4K.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

I'm confused tho, since the Neo's CPU is lagging behind already, then surely it will become obsolete quickly and a subtanial upgrade will be required soon?

Thats what i was wondering, this is such a small upgrade that it doesnt really accomplish anything. When the PS4 becomes outdated, the PS4k will be outdated too.

 

[ninjablade]

I honestly wish ps4k only had a better cpu, so it could run most ps4 games at 60fps.

 

[Blueblur1]

Fantastic post by chubigans. It may suck to have products refreshed sooner because of the costs associated with more purchases but I still see it as a positive. This may even be a more mass consumer friendly way of doing business in the industry since older models will be ideal for price conscious consumers. And I expect there eventually to be breaks in compatibility but it'll probably be a forward compatibility break 3 revisions later (allowing devs to design games without being limited by the first model of a current gen system). Like with smartphone compatibility breaks.

 

[SneakyStephan]

I didn't say that everything needed to be PS4k only going forward. Only that not even allowing the option of PS4k only stuff is shortsighted.

allowing ps4k only stuff directly means breaking forward compatibility...

You can't be like oh you can't play the new games on anything but the incrementally better new system because you bought the old system a year after release 2 years ago.

ps4k exclusives would be a good way to permanently alienate a large percentage of their current customer base, and rightfully so, what a dick move that would be.

x86 doesn't mean instant BC. Keeping a similar CPU is only one piece to the puzzle, especially now that consoles have actual Operating Systems.

I didn't say instant BC, I said bc is possible

previously going from proprietary (or powerpc) cpu to something else each time meant that you couldn't have BC without emulation (requires exponentially much more performance so you can brute force, and even then only partially works) or without including the old hardware in the new box (how nintendo and sony used to do it).


Now you can support the old instructions on the new hardware and do it right.

As a consumer I guess the advantage is better specs without waiting 8 years, while still having a big games library to choose from.

What I wonder though, will there actually be a PS5? Will you be unable to play PS4 games on PS5?

If sony won't have ps4 BC on ps5 they'll have really screwed the pooch, it's the least you would expect now that they went for a generic x86 cpu and a regular gpu.

If they're no longer going to have heavily subsidized and exotic hardware but are just going for basically off the shelf hardware from amd (yeah yeah, second jaguar module on the apu and shared memory pool, same difference) there is no longer any excuse for not having BC between generations.

 

[Milly Osworth]

As a consumer I guess the advantage is better specs without waiting 8 years, while still having a big games library to choose from.

What I wonder though, will there actually be a PS5? Will you be unable to play PS4 games on PS5?

 

[Jacksinthe]

An important question... Will we finally get PS2 and PS1 BC back? WORTH IT FOR THE UPGRADE

 

[TGO]

An important question... Will we finally get PS2 and PS1 BC back? WORTH IT FOR THE UPGRADE

No the OS is incapable of added that function, just like folders.
It would have to be an app.

 

[scoobs]

Well said OP. My thoughts put into words that I'm too dumb to come up with!

 

[Go_Ly_Dow]

Thats what i was wondering, this is such a small upgrade that it doesnt really accomplish anything. When the PS4 becomes outdated, the PS4k will be outdated too.

Yeah, how will this help mitigate a generational reset?

The PS5 is gonna be needed for a more powerful CPU?

 

[MatrixMan.EXE]

I agree with everything you're saying Chubigans, except the 'no PS5' stance. There will be, regardless of how big of an upgrade it is. The name alone is a huge marketing tool and it'll work to the same effect as iPhone 4 > iPhone 5 > iPhone 6. Milestone releases will happen.

 

[MidgarBlowedUp]

so I guess this is marketed for grown ups?

Pretty sure mom isn't going to buy little Timmy a PS4KNeo for Christmas after she just bought a PS4 last Christmas. All I'm saying is they better really market the premium aspect of it for people to buy it.

 

[Mikey Jr.]

TLDR
The whole point of me buying a console is to play games without worring about hardwere. If PS4K becames a thing I'll go PC only.

I know, 2 skus every 7 years.

How will my brain cope?!?!

 

[RoboPlato]

Really great article, Chubigans. I've been in favor of this move but you pointed out several things I hadn't even thought of yet.

 

[ninjablade]

I know, 2 skus every 7 years.

How will my brain cope?!?!

I honestly wish they had more skus, like I would pay 200$ at launch if Sony can deliver a premium console that can play all ps4 games at 1080p/60fps. I don't want to go pc cause I will missing on some must have exlusives, and more of a headache then just plug and play.

 

[Boke1879]

so I guess this is marketed for grown ups?

Pretty sure mom isn't going to buy little Timmy a PS4KNeo for Christmas after she just bought a PS4 last Christmas. All I'm saying is they better really market the premium aspect of it for people to buy it.

But they don't have to buy it is the thing. this early on it's for the enthusiasts. People like us. Moms will no doubt buy the cheaper option, and it's not a bad thing.

 

[-ImaginaryInsider]

Thats what i was wondering, this is such a small upgrade that it doesnt really accomplish anything. When the PS4 becomes outdated, the PS4k will be outdated too.

It's about performance increase within a certain budget. Depending on how you look at it, Jaguar was outdated at launch, but any increase gives them more to work with.

Also, these might not be final CPU specs, things like the clock speed can change late in the game.

 

[EatinOlives]

I honestly wish they had more skus, like I would pay 200$ at launch if Sony can deliver a premium console that can play all ps4 games at 1080p/60fps.

But that's the thing, resolution and frame rate are always up to the dev, not the hardware.

 

[NahaNago]

was this thread really needed considering it seems like in every thread that talks about ps4k all those who are against it gets almost attacked or shouted down for not loving the idea of it. Its almost as bad as the vr threads.

 

[Pokemaniac]

allowing ps4k only stuff directly means breaking forward compatibility...

You can't be like oh you can't play the new games on anything but the incrementally better new system because you bought the old system a year after release 2 years ago.

ps4k exclusives would be a good way to permanently alienate a large percentage of their current customer base, and rightfully so, what a dick move that would be.





I didn't say instant BC, I said bc is possible

previously going from proprietary (or powerpc) cpu to something else each time meant that you couldn't have BC without emulation (requires exponentially much more performance so you can brute force, and even then only partially works) or without including the old hardware in the new box (how nintendo and sony used to do it).


Now you can support the old instructions on the new hardware and do it right.

Perfect forwards compatibility should never be the expectation. If the new hardware is more capable, then it is only natural that certain content should be exclusive to it. That's how it's always worked and that's how it should continue to work.

 

[ninjablade]

But that's the thing, resolution and frame rate are always up to the dev, not the hardware.

Well yea but the gpu is a monster, compared to vanilla ps4, if it had a good cpu, almost every vanilla ps4 game would run 60fps with little effort.

 

[MatrixMan.EXE]

If it means the end of the current AAA publishers, it'd be a net positive.

No it won't, because the industry would collapse in on itself and crash. You people who have this shtick against AAA publishers don't seem to get that they're the backbone of this industry and why it makes so much damn money.

 

[Markoman]

I know, 2 skus every 7 years.

How will my brain cope?!?!

2 SKUs? Do you have a crystal ball?
2013-2020 = 7 years
2013 - PS 4
2016/17 - PS 4K
2019/20 - PS5

That's three consoles within 7 years. And what if this really works and Sony starts thinking about releasing new iterations every 2 years? Man, I know there are some knee-jerk reactions in these type of threads ("I will go PC") but there is a point though. Console only players loose the hardware investment/ upgrade argument for sure if they are enthusiastic enough to buy every console. 3 consoles in 6/7 years will cost you 1200$ = upper range PC

 

[KDin]

I'm not on board. My biggest concern is that games won't be optimized for either the PS4 or Neo.

 

[Delio]

As a consumer I guess the advantage is better specs without waiting 8 years, while still having a big games library to choose from.

What I wonder though, will there actually be a PS5? Will you be unable to play PS4 games on PS5?

I have to imagine it will be marketed as the PS5 but the specs wont be a huge jump over the Neo. By then I can see devs focusing only on Neo/PS5 games for the extra power. Atleast that is what im expecting anyways. Guessing the Next Gen buzzword would be gone under this.

 

[Refreshment.01]

was this thread really needed considering it seems like in every thread that talks about ps4k all those who are against it gets almost attacked or shouted down for not loving the idea of it. Its almost as bad as the vr threads.

The problem lies in that the "against" side doesn't come up with good reasons to support their stance and purposedly ignore facts or likely scenarios.

 

[IonicSnake]

I'm actually starting to like this idea and found your article pretty good. On the forward compatibility issue I'm thinking, at some point Sony will stop manufacturing the 2013 PS4 and when that happens I'm guessing the game developers will stop supporting it as well. By that time though the ones still on the OG Ps4 should be ready to upgrade.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

It's about performance increase within a certain budget. Depending on how you look at it, Jaguar was outdated at launch, but any increase gives them more to work with.

Also, these might not be final CPU specs, things like the clock speed can change late in the game.

This isnt a budget console though, this is a luxury item. Its a stronger PS4. If you cant afford the luxury PS4, you just buy the regular one.

October will mark the 3rd year that the PS4 has been on the market, we should be seeing a PS4.5, not a PS4.1

 

[Jacksinthe]

was this thread really needed considering it seems like in every thread that talks about ps4k all those who are against it gets almost attacked or shouted down for not loving the idea of it. Its almost as bad as the vr threads.

If the mods haven't locked it yet...

Also, there's this weird "trick" you can do when threads you won't like pop up, it's called "ignoring them". You might have to Google the maneuver, I don't have the Wiki link.

Takes practice.

 

[Duxxy3]

So last generation I think we ended up with just north of 260 million consoles sold. So far in this generation we're a little past a fifth of that total.

Neither console has hit $250, nevermind $200. The prices where consoles switch from core to mainstream. Roughly 20 million users are still on 360 if the MAU is correct.

My point is that we've barely scratched the surface of this generation, but already we already want to ditch it. Sales for the PS4K and XB1.5 aren't going to go to new gamers. They are going to end up in the hands of people who already have a PS4 or a XB1 (or both). That's not expanding out the market, it's doubling down on the same small audience.

I wish that Sony and Microsoft had done a better job on their hardware at the beginning of this generation. But it is what it is. Work with what you've got, rather than blowing up the whole damn thing.

 

[WiiRevolution1]

All I see is how it's going to benefit the companies and not the consumers, paying $400 minimum for a console that is going to be outdated sooner than expected, we now have to trust that we are going to get games that are not going to run like shit for the PS4 when they launch because they were tuned for the PS4k first and the ps4 second (We already have plenty of examples that this doesn't happen already and that's supposedly when the game is being made for the ps4 in mind). You can bet your ass that all games from now on will be shown off on the PS4k now with consumers going to have to wait for the game to actually be launched and impressions to come forth if they want to know how well the PS4 version runs.



Iterative consoles is the worst idea I have heard since MS's online only ideas. It's taking literally the pros of getting a console and ditching them.

100% agree.

I keep hoping Sony will quietly kill this idea but if they don't, I could see future Playstations and the gaming industry in general bomb. The PS4K has a very high chance of doing this which sucks since I love Playstation games.

Whats funny is that when Microsoft announced online only system, all Sony did was watch them burn. If Sony goes through with PS4K and Microsoft cancels their supposed upgrade, then they could in turn start selling more systems.

The iterative console idea is horrble in every way imo and there aren't any pros despite what op thinks is pros. I hope I don't see the fall of Playstation but I don't see it going any other way if they go through with this.