Demanufacture
Banned
ONLY POST IF IT'S POSITIVE!
-
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
ONLY POST IF IT'S POSITIVE!
The problem is - as Marty chinn has pointed out when I use the 'stable development environment' or 'supports longer term development planning' is that - if they stick with x86 - they'd get those benefits with the usual Big Bang approach too.
I agree with you generally though
How is that the point of buying a console? people buy consoles because it's what they want.
Refreshment.01
Member
If taking just a second to absorb the surrounding reality and actually thinking just a tiny bit. you' ll easily notice that you are wrong. Just look at the market.
THE:MILKMAN
Member
1, It isn't a small upgrade. It is +30% on the CPU and +125% on the GPU in raw flops.
2, We don't yet know if Sony have made any more customisations to the APU to improve any CPU limitations/bottlenecks. I can't believe Sony/AMD wouldn't address this if it is a problem some devs have?
The PS5 will just be another iteration that is 2.5X again in say 2019 but this time a smaller bump on the GPU and big bumps for CPU/RAM.
I don't think we'll get a X10 jump on anything again. 8GB GDDR5 was pure luck and the parting shot of that metric.
RedAssedApe
Banned
curious how many people bought multiple versions of the ps3/360 last gen (rrod replacements aside) or even ps2.
potatohead
Member
"Small upgrade?"
People spend hundreds of dollars on PC GPUs just to get like 120% performance of their last GPU.
Here were talking 230% performance..... and a new GPU architecture.
A lot can be said about PS4K, but small upgrade it is not, at least not on the GPU end.
The CPU yea is a small upgrade.
People spend hundreds of dollars on PC GPUs just to get like 120% performance of their last GPU.
Here were talking 230% performance..... and a new GPU architecture.
A lot can be said about PS4K, but small upgrade it is not, at least not on the GPU end.
The CPU yea is a small upgrade.
CosmicQueso
Member
Difference is that this thread was created by a developer, published on gamasutra, and offers a fresh take on the issue.
Start by reading the OP, react to it if you wish, join what has been a good conversation.
Attacking the thread and people discussing in it isn't helpful, is it?
Whatever stance or reason they do come up with will just be simply dissected until eventually it hits upon their character somehow like in how they are just purposefully ignoring the facts or likely scenarios which could be thrown at the "for" side as well.
Maybe he buys all 3 consoles each gen? Besides PS4 & X1 are only 2 1/2 years months old, hoping for only 2 iterations every 7 years is wishful thinking.
I generally agree OP, but there's one thing you didn't mention. "Minimum development standards"
This is not "constantly iterative hardware" this is simply replacing 1 console per generation with 2.
What developers and consumers generally like about consoles, was that unlike the PC market, there is always a minimum standard of development, a specific target that you have to hit, and then higher tiered consoles and PC would scale that up.
Nobody wants to be thrown out into the ocean, and with traditional cycles, there is atleast a raft that developers could grasp onto to bring some structure to their games.
The console after PS4K is not just going to have twice the amount of GPU power, with the same Jaguar CPU upclocked, and the same amount of RAM with a marginal bandwidth boost like PS4K has, and that unit is going to be the minimum standard for Sony, not PS4K....they have to make sure developers are kept in that same pattern of traditional development to price that structural solidity to the industry, or else that big advantage to coding for consoles, goes away.
This is a big reason why i think Sony WILL call the next console PS5, and will not lock developers to the PS4Ks specs and features when calling for feature requirements
This is not "constantly iterative hardware" this is simply replacing 1 console per generation with 2.
What developers and consumers generally like about consoles, was that unlike the PC market, there is always a minimum standard of development, a specific target that you have to hit, and then higher tiered consoles and PC would scale that up.
Nobody wants to be thrown out into the ocean, and with traditional cycles, there is atleast a raft that developers could grasp onto to bring some structure to their games.
The console after PS4K is not just going to have twice the amount of GPU power, with the same Jaguar CPU upclocked, and the same amount of RAM with a marginal bandwidth boost like PS4K has, and that unit is going to be the minimum standard for Sony, not PS4K....they have to make sure developers are kept in that same pattern of traditional development to price that structural solidity to the industry, or else that big advantage to coding for consoles, goes away.
This is a big reason why i think Sony WILL call the next console PS5, and will not lock developers to the PS4Ks specs and features when calling for feature requirements
Demanufacture
Banned
Hyperbole, but I do worry as base PS4 versions will have a little less focus on them.
Can you elaborate? Thanks.
You're on a discussion forum. People will disagree and discuss. That's the point.
I like clear distinctions between hardware.
The way the PS4K leads is the game way the iPhone went; hardware that uses a unified OS (and therefore software), which are slowly phased out.
Console gaming is an effective model, and a successful one considering the success of the PS4.
This just seems to set the precedent for a mess more than anything else, and if you're into it PC gaming exists as probably a better option. At least there you 'throw out' parts, not the whole.
The way the PS4K leads is the game way the iPhone went; hardware that uses a unified OS (and therefore software), which are slowly phased out.
Console gaming is an effective model, and a successful one considering the success of the PS4.
This just seems to set the precedent for a mess more than anything else, and if you're into it PC gaming exists as probably a better option. At least there you 'throw out' parts, not the whole.
bitbydeath
Gold Member
Seems to go both ways.
People happy with it focus on the positives and those against it only focus on the negatives.
Jacksinthe
Banned
The bolded is the antithesis of iteration. You do it for every new box following a set of rules and call quits to hardware after 2 iterations and keep the middle iteration rolling - you want smooth transitions. A single iteration between gens creates walls again, segregates the userbase to hardware and not the platform. If iterative design is to work it needs to be continuous and carry from box to box. That's the point. Otherwise single iterations will remain luxury boxes instead of replacements and continuations of a platform.
Horrible for business, devs and consumer.
This article focuses on why this is good for Sony, not the consumer. The only meaningful benefit claimed is there will be more uniform release of software, so less drought at the both ends of the cycle. As for Destiny still working on your PS5.66 in the year 2023, that's called backwards compatibility, and you don't need iterative upgrades for that. Stay on X86 and a gcn feature set GPU during the next "traditional" cycle and you're good to go.
Even the drought is a non issue, when you keep the architecture. And you don't need forwards compatibility, but it'll be so much easier for devs to retrofit their games to the old gen and offer cross gen opportunities to the consumers, if the old gen is still a viable one.
I'm still not sold on it however people spin this.
Even the drought is a non issue, when you keep the architecture. And you don't need forwards compatibility, but it'll be so much easier for devs to retrofit their games to the old gen and offer cross gen opportunities to the consumers, if the old gen is still a viable one.
I'm still not sold on it however people spin this.
Xion_Stellar
People should stop referencing data that makes me feel uncomfortable because games get ported to platforms I don't like
If a new console iteration is coming out every 3-4 years from now on than at the very least I hope that the x86 architecture makes all the games forward compatible (PS4 games can be played on a PS6 with x86 architecture) and maybe the games will be 100% compatible with 2 iterations
Example:
Now
S4 games work on PS4 and PS4K
In 3 years:Games work with PS4K and PS5
In 6 years:Games work on PS5 and PS5K
In 9 years:Games work on PS5K and PS6
Of course this means no more "maximum optimization" for a single platform but let's not fool our selves here only 1st party developers ever did that and 3rd party developers never cared to do so.
I'm ready for this future.
Example:
Now
S4 games work on PS4 and PS4KIn 3 years:Games work with PS4K and PS5
In 6 years:Games work on PS5 and PS5K
In 9 years:Games work on PS5K and PS6
Of course this means no more "maximum optimization" for a single platform but let's not fool our selves here only 1st party developers ever did that and 3rd party developers never cared to do so.
I'm ready for this future.
Canklestank
Neo Member
I just don't see things going iterative. It doesn't make any sense. If technology is slowing, but consoles are released more frequently, what's the incentive to upgrade? This time, it's 4K, which just so happens to fit between PS4 and PS5.
But if we're a little more forward looking, in the future, where's the incentive to upgrade to a machine that plays games at the same resolution and framerate, with slightly better AA, AO, etc.
And eventually, console gaming is going to move to 4K native rendering. This will likely mean that games will look worse graphically than the previous console in order to achieve a 4K framebuffer. There isn't a stopgap 1440p for TV's like there is for monitors, and I don't think 3 years is long enough to jump from 1080p to UHD. I suppose they could downscale 1440p, but they'll likely opt for better graphics.
I honestly just think this will be a premium model, mostly geared to people with 4K TV's and want 4K BD, with slightly higher specs to try and hook the small group of people who need to have the latest and greatest. If this was truly the beginning to iterative consoles, I think they would have gone with a different CPU and a beefier GPU. I almost think this could be a one-time thing to deal with the special circumstance that is 4K.
I still think we'll see a PS5.
But if we're a little more forward looking, in the future, where's the incentive to upgrade to a machine that plays games at the same resolution and framerate, with slightly better AA, AO, etc.
And eventually, console gaming is going to move to 4K native rendering. This will likely mean that games will look worse graphically than the previous console in order to achieve a 4K framebuffer. There isn't a stopgap 1440p for TV's like there is for monitors, and I don't think 3 years is long enough to jump from 1080p to UHD. I suppose they could downscale 1440p, but they'll likely opt for better graphics.
I honestly just think this will be a premium model, mostly geared to people with 4K TV's and want 4K BD, with slightly higher specs to try and hook the small group of people who need to have the latest and greatest. If this was truly the beginning to iterative consoles, I think they would have gone with a different CPU and a beefier GPU. I almost think this could be a one-time thing to deal with the special circumstance that is 4K.
I still think we'll see a PS5.
Ill never understand why theres a group of people who can't just shut the fuck up and enjoy the thing they decided to purchase. Worst of it is android and apple, both sides have people that just can't stand that the other exists. Fucking bizzarre.
PS4k is an interesting experiement and i commend sony for trying it. Wether it works or doesn't work is fine, im curious as well if people would be up for a mid cycle upgrade. It won't be no time until devs are used to this and create options on the backend that adjusts graphic fidelity and options depending which hardware its running on.
Literally no one has to buy this. The product will die out if people really do not want it. I don't think its going to ruin experiences for regular PS4 users. It works for PC with graphic options, why can't it work here? Besides the internet will shit all over any dev who makes an unplayable regular PS4 version of a PS4k game.
PS4k is an interesting experiement and i commend sony for trying it. Wether it works or doesn't work is fine, im curious as well if people would be up for a mid cycle upgrade. It won't be no time until devs are used to this and create options on the backend that adjusts graphic fidelity and options depending which hardware its running on.
Literally no one has to buy this. The product will die out if people really do not want it. I don't think its going to ruin experiences for regular PS4 users. It works for PC with graphic options, why can't it work here? Besides the internet will shit all over any dev who makes an unplayable regular PS4 version of a PS4k game.
potatohead
Member
Agree with all of the above, especially that PS5 will happen.
If PS5 only has double the power of PS4K, that only makes it ~5x more powerful than PS4, which is not nearly enough for 4K in 2019.
PS5 will be 10x to 20x more powerful than PS4 easily, and 5 to 10x more powerful than PS4K.
Just like PS4 is ~10x more powerful than PS3, and has 16x the RAM pool.
With HBM2 maturing at the same time, it's almost a shoe in that PS5 will be more than capable for games in 4K.
That means little if the next console in itself is fully BC with the previous model regardless. That is why Sony are discounting PS4 and making PS4K the launch price of PS4, because this is indeed a luxury item that is completely optional to the consumer.
What i'm referring to is the Sony keeping a fixed development pattern, so it isn't the wild west in regards to how games are actually created. They aren't crazy enough to simply throw out everything that kept the console industry a closed ecosystem.
ArkhamFantasy
Member
Every 5-6 years we would get a 10x jump, this is 3 years later so a "PS4.5" that bridges the gap between PS4 and PS5, should be around 5x better. This is more like 1.5x better. They barely touched the CPU and ram.
Really good read.
Only time will tell how the consumers react to this decidedly big shift in the console space. I don't share the anger some people are having because I don't own a PS4 but the thing that was attractive about a console was that you only had to buy it once and you're good to go until the next one and don't have to worry about upgrades or getting the "best version there is" like with PC. the iterative console will change that.
Only time will tell how the consumers react to this decidedly big shift in the console space. I don't share the anger some people are having because I don't own a PS4 but the thing that was attractive about a console was that you only had to buy it once and you're good to go until the next one and don't have to worry about upgrades or getting the "best version there is" like with PC. the iterative console will change that.
It being good for Sony was all i could see as well and your stay on x86 was the answer i needed for the next gen console game development. If they can do this at 3 years into the gen and still have backwards compatibility with ps4k why not in 2 or 3 more years from now for the now cancelled ps5.
potatohead
Member
Well think about humanity and what humans did with religion for thousands of years basically, and it should really not seem so bizarre anymore.
Lord Panda
The Sea is Always Right
I personally feel the upgrade doesn't go far enough.
NullPointer
Member
Its easy to see what NEO fans see in it. What I don't see is the pro-NEO crowd having any real understanding of why people could be negative about the idea. This article is no different.
I'm for this generation's PC-esque architecture and the backwards and forward compatibility that it allows for, but that doesn't automatically mean that the NEO and its upgrades, dropping so early into this slow to start generation is a good idea, or one that PS4 owners should universally see as positive. Its quite possible that the quality bar starts to slip for the PS4 titles as NEO becomes the new quality baseline in terms of marketing and expectations. PC gamers are used to seeing games along a spectrum of power and quality, but that isn't a console viewpoint, and imho its not a welcome one.
I'm with Alex Nevarro on this in seeing the NEO as an unforced error on Sony's part, at least if all that we know is true and mostly sums it up.
potatohead
Member
No. That's not how scaling works with doubling time or exponential curves.
You do realize that if in 2 to 3 years you multiply performance by 3 times, that means in 4 to 6 years you multiply performance by 9 times right if the same function is used?
Maths, is what that is called.
If you need to draw a chart for yourself feel free to do so.
bestpersonevar
Member
What if the ps4.5k has either ps2 or ps3 compete backwards compatibility?
I agree with this as well. You can't lock developers to PS4K like people who are for the iterative concept want, because that is the antithesis to evolving gaming experiences.
PS5 is going to launch in a time where by default, the tech is going to be vastly more powerful and easier to implement than PS4 was. Using the PS4K as the standard would by definition kneecap developers to a stop gap unit that was created on the cheap for the publisher to gain an extra leg up.
Again, i repeat that Sony is not aiming for an iterative concept, but simply making themselves a bigger slice of the market by catering to the power players as well as the economic players.
LookAtMeGo
Member
It has to have something to do with the PSVR. Are they really going iterative here? Or is it because with PSVR coming out the base PS4 just wasnt up to snuff for their vision of PSVR. They never really mentioned VR which makes me think that this is where we will see the biggest difference.
Well I guess with MS talking about it as well its not just because of VR. The timing just seems peculiar.
Well I guess with MS talking about it as well its not just because of VR. The timing just seems peculiar.
It's iterative. Phil Spencer even spoke of it so I wouldn't be shocked to see MS do something similar. Hell Nintendo has been doing it with their handhelds for quite some time now. Their next console could take on this model as well.
If a new console iteration is coming out every 3-4 years from now on than at the very least I hope that the x86 architecture makes all the games forward compatible (PS4 games can be played on a PS6 with x86 architecture) and maybe the games will be 100% compatible with 2 iterations
Example:
Now
In 3 years:Games work with PS4K and PS5
In 6 years:Games work on PS5 and PS5K
In 9 years:Games work on PS5K and PS6
Of course this means no more "maximum optimization" for a single platform but let's not fool our selves here only 1st party developers ever did that and 3rd party developers never cared to do so.
I'm ready for this future.
Your outline there is exactly what I'm expecting. PS4K will have to be considered for atleast three years after the PS5 launches then bam the mid gen refresh is here and they can forget the PS4K. I dont really care for the model but thats what I expect.
NullPointer
Member
And if the value proposition here comes down to raw power (which has never been the appeal of consoles imo), than MS can have an opportunity here by offering a more powerful iteration, even if it comes at a higher price.
Why buy a second PS4 with a bump in power when you could buy a new, even more powerful Xbox to compliment the PS4 you already have?
LookAtMeGo
Member
I see I see.. I am OK with this. I do wonder if when they talk about the NEO not having anything exclusive over the PS4, that includes the games and content on PSVR as well..
Xbox 360 GPU was 240 Gflops & Xbox One GPU is 1.31 that's ~ 5.5X jump in 8 years
PS4 GPU is 1.84 Tflops & PS4 Neo GPU is 4.19 that's ~ 2.3 jump in 3 years
EatinOlives
Member
Nintendo's take on it is actually pretty bad. At best (such as with the DSi), the spec bump does next to nothing. At worst, such as with Hyrule Warriors Legends, the base version runs like pure garbage.
I TRULY hope it doesn't end up anything like Nintendo's attempts at iterative hardware because they've ranged from pointless to actively awful.
MastaKilla
Member
I've been a dedicated PlayStation gamer since ps2, but that was mostly because it was the only place to place my favorite franchise. With socom dead, this gen I stuck with ps4 because I thought they made all the right moves for gamers.
I think iterative consoles might be good for the company but I don't see benefit for consumers. I'm not going to be buying a ps4k or an Xbox 1.5. But from here on out, if this is how consoles are going to go, it's gonna make more sense to invest in a PC instead.
You're all entitled to be excited by this development but it really is a turn off for me. I loved the stability of being a console gamer. I don't want my console to be like my cell phone, where in 2 years im ages behind if I don't upgrade. Will be interesting to see how this turns out but I can honestly say my ps4 might be my last Playstation console. Those are just my honest personal feelings as a consumer.
I think iterative consoles might be good for the company but I don't see benefit for consumers. I'm not going to be buying a ps4k or an Xbox 1.5. But from here on out, if this is how consoles are going to go, it's gonna make more sense to invest in a PC instead.
You're all entitled to be excited by this development but it really is a turn off for me. I loved the stability of being a console gamer. I don't want my console to be like my cell phone, where in 2 years im ages behind if I don't upgrade. Will be interesting to see how this turns out but I can honestly say my ps4 might be my last Playstation console. Those are just my honest personal feelings as a consumer.
SneakyStephan
Banned
The hardware is only marginally more powerful in this case, it's not a full gen jump, it's not even a quarter gen jump.
forward BC on pc doesn't break every 3 years either it makes no sense.
You could buy a lynfield i5 and hd5870 in 2009 and still play every game on it today, and continue to play every multiplatform game on it until the end of the ps4-ps4k generation
idk why you want forward compatibility to be broken it's terrible for the user/gamer/consumer.
Not after 3+ years they don't.
I used to have a hd6870 (xbox one level performance) and the upgrade I bought 3 years later got >300 percent the performance of my old one.
noone spends hundreds of dollars to get 20 percent more performance after 3years
130 percent more gpu performance is a small iterative boost, it's not meaningless, but it's not nearly enough to do anything radically different.
A full generation jump is normally an ~1000 percent jump (and something similar for the cpu, and 16x jump for the ram), so when comparing it to a normal generational jump this spec bump is very small.
Which again is why some people are wondering what the point is.
Look at last gen, whether you had a 7800gtx or an 8800gt, by the end of the gen the difference between them and a modern gpu dwarfed the difference between the two, so they were both outdated all the same.
By the time the ps4 is at the end of its life and ps5 is about to release if it's supposed to be another 8 year gen (that is the argument , right? that ps4k is somehow supposed to extend this generation) the ps4k will be badly outdated just the same as the ps4.
If the goal was the extend the generation then a ps4k isn't going to help
if it's just a random intermediary spec bump before a normal length (5-6 year) generation switch then it's fine.
You can't really compare tflop numbers between very different architectures
the hd5870 was a 2.7TF gpu on paper yet the 1.8TF hd7850 (GCN, brand new architecture compared to the 5870) in ps4 is obviously performs a good 50-60 percent faster in games.
Not that the xbox one was a full generation jump, it clearly wasn't, and it suffers for it in current gen ports.
If a ps5 is only a 5x jump from ps4 it would be incredibly dissapointing.
Necron
Member
Agree with you. I can't see any good coming from this for the consumers and game developers.
The Artisan
Member
I'm on mobile right now and gaf's been down for me all day. I'll check out the OP later.
LookAtMeGo
Member
So begins the in-house console wars.
NullPointer
Member
I expect a lot of "In NEO-mode the game hits it target and stays there, while the core version struggles ..."
Whether that comes to pass or not is how I'll know whether this NEO has been a negative or positive influence.
Similar threads
- Locked