Support NeoGAF

[Marty Chinn]

Heck, we're seeing 4K adoption starting to take off now, when most analyst were saying the marketplace wouldn't adopt another TV set after the big conversion to HD televisions occurred, and that took a decade.

You're misreading the data on this. 4K adoption isn't taking off for the sake of 4K; it's rising because it's replacing the stock of 1080p models in shipments and availability. TV sales overall are down year over year. The only uptick is because 4K is becoming the common available choice. People are buying a TV which just happens to be 4K. Just like they were buying a TV which just happened to have 3D. Just like they were buying a TV that just happened to be a Smart TV.

 

[CosmicQueso]

He's like those old fashioned baseball fans who want nothing to change.

OMG the PS4K is the Jose Bautista batflip of the Console world. Flashy, showy, some people like it, some people hate it.

 

[Jacksinthe]

I'm sure they referred to some of their first party at least, but it does seem like many are only just receiving dev kits, or haven't yet received them, so I guess it was a developer by developer thing.

Regarding your last paragraph, it's a difficult one. Because the PS4 is already selling so well, and adding the PS4K doesn't really add new software sales for developers, just the same sale but for an updated platform, so developers themselves are unlikely to make more money from this move, quite the contrary (due to the added costs in providing an updated version). Eg someone buys and plays their game on the PS4K instead of the PS4, but would have bought and played the PS4 version either way, had the former not existed. I suppose there is a chance the PS4K version attracts some PC only gamers, but I doubt it'll be a noteworthy draw outside of the ordinary.

So then there's the thing about added expression. Yes you get more power to express your vision a bit more, but at what cost? More development time, money, resources, testing etc. And then the question is, will that extra expression even be that creative? The game has to be the same at the end of the day, so really a developers expression is limited to simple things like resolution, performance or a few graphical tweaks here and there. It's not like creatively the PS4K suddenly let's developers run wild, they're still ultimately held back by the PS4.

Oh I agree but this is definitely a long game. Short term benefits are pretty much nothing, IMO. But if the iterative route grows, being able to access everyone with just a bit more dev time would be nice, similar to Android and iOS - you know everyone with a phone can access your app, regardless of model. Price point will play an important role to consumers and tools will play an important role to developers. If the tools are wildly different then I would push back. I don't know, though. Like for like architecture is a good start.

 

[mckmas8808]

By most, you mean like two, one of them being a Sony employee/developer. I think it's fair to say the reception has thus far been mixed.

Edit: ^^Make that three! Sort of.

And how many does Colin have?

Why not take the better discussion seen on IGN's take on it, and Jeff Gertzman's 2 cent's.
Jeff reiterates my thoughts on the possibilities of this backfiring and possibly putting the industry in a weird place that may not be for the better.

The Lobby- with Jeff about Neo

IGN Thoughts

More Polar smaller talk about Neo via IGN
Some people are in the middle on IGN as in not affected in the emotional tizzy Colin is in.

But Jeff's thoughts kind of reiterate my sentiment on where this could lead the industry, and ask the question of who asked for this? Developers outside maybe VR didn't, and history has shown as the IGN(9:57) talked at length challenging systems usually yield great results as time goes on, and more experience with the system.
I mean look at the IQ we have with exclusives on PS4. They are pretty damn stunning, and as their tools for their own development and engines mature they can get even more out of the system as time goes by.
Looking at Uncharted 1-Last of us shows a lot of improvement on PS3

The same can be said so far with looking at early launch games, compared to now. Infamous still looks amazing, but compare it to Uncharted 4, the order, or even Horizon IQ along with better art direction have really helped show what these systems can do.
People like myself and Jeff I would say are not in the minority if these feelings are shared across other entertainers and media heads who have been covering this medium for 15-20 years.

You and other people's problem is that you are convinced that once the NEO comes out, devs will stop trying on the OG PS4. You forget that the OG PS4 is the base and THE console of the generation. Devs aren't going to work mainly on NEO first and then lazy port the game to the PS4.

 

[xaosslug]

the whole 'i'm not mad for myself, I'm mad for the CONSUMER!' argument is such a damn laugh, tho. LOL

ETA: I think peeps are gonna be real surprised when PS4K launches, and SONY probably drops PS4 to $249 or $199 to compete with/crush NX.

 

[H.Cornerstone]

OMG the PS4K is the Jose Bautista batflip of the Console world. Flashy, showy, some people like it, some people hate it.

HAha, yeah I remember when the Brewers did the beast mode and Baseball lost their crap. That's how I feel about this.

"THE EXPECTATIONS ARE IT WORKS FOR 5+ years! THIS HASNT HOW CONSOLES HAVE BEEN!"

"yeah times are changing but your console will still work"

"OUTRAGE!"

 

[nib95]

Oh I agree but this is definitely a long game. Short term benefits are pretty much nothing, IMO. But if the iterative route grows, being able to access everyone with just a bit more dev time would be nice, similar to Android and iOS - you know everyone with a phone can access your app, regardless of model. Price point will play an important role to consumers and tools will play an important role to developers. If the tools are wildly different then I would push back. I don't know, though. Like for like architecture is a good start.

Do you mean if the PS5 is also iterative, and there is a constant cycle of iterative releases similar to how games work on Android and iOS now? See this is where I think a long term iterative cycle is actually far worse for developer expression, technological advancement and the creative process, as more powerful systems will still be at the behest of less powerful ones, and developers would have to forever think of the lowest common denominator when making their games.

Taking your mobile phone example, despite devices like the Galaxy s7 or iPhone 6S having such powerful GPU's for a mobile device, pretty much every mobile game out there is still not even close to really taking proper advantage of them. Instead users of these devices, such as me, get the same shitty looking games, only at slightly better framerates.

Another reason why it's not a good idea to compare or draw parallels from mobiles to console gaming, is because people buy mobile phones because they do countless different things, and enhance people's lives in a huge multitude of ways. Gaming on a mobile phone is a tertiary additive, and as such consumers are less demanding of that area of development. With consoles it's an entirely different story. People are buying these expensive, somewhat niche (compared to mobile phones, TV's, cars etc) luxury products for the sole purpose of advanced gaming, where the demands and expectations are much higher. It's one of the reasons I think a completely iterative cycle, Eg if the PS5 was just a PS4K.5, would be detrimental to the industry and have a negative impact on sales and future adoption.

 

[Bots are better than you]

What came to my mind, given how nearly everything about PS4 leaked beforehand, it's within the realm of possibility, that 3rds were informed not too long ago, given how the first rumor thread by OsirisBlack (i think that is the username) was about Sony informing other parties.

the whole 'i'm not mad for myself, I'm mad for the CONSUMER!' argument is such a damn laugh, tho. LOL

ETA: I think peeps are gonna be real surprised when PS4K launches, and SONY probably drops PS4 to $249 or $199 to compete with/crush NX.

Let me thank you for your objective, non-biased statement with this non-ironic sentence.

 

[Papacheeks]

And how many does Colin have?



You and other people's problem is that you are convinced that once the NEO comes out, devs will stop trying on the OG PS4. You forget that the OG PS4 is the base and THE console of the generation. Devs aren't going to work mainly on NEO first and then lazy port the game to the PS4.

If that's all you get out of my examples of discussion then there's no point in continuing conversation.

I'm not saying that will happen right away. But possibly as time goes on with vr there's possibly a chance of it happening just once that can set off a development chain reaction. I bet Nintendo had something like a mandate similar in place for most if not all of their 3DS titles. And looked what happened to hyrule warriors and xenoblade chronicles.

Imagine that with a bigger IP on a home console that has 50+ million owners.

 

[……forgetit]

Despite what you think of him, isn't he quite reputable?

I don't think there is any doubt he has sources in the industry. I don't think I would ever consider him as a reputable news source though, even if he did work for IGN. I've always seen him as an embarrassing fanboy and was kinda surprised to see so many positive opinions of him on GAF.

Pretty much that, with Colin there is no middle ground, there is no indifference. The dude deals in extremes. He was a terrible Nintendo fanboy until he switched to playstation and then Nintendo was trash in his opinion. The dude called the dreamcast trash for crying out loud. He's never just "meh" everything is amazing or horrible.

 

[-Horizon-]

Pretty much that, with Colin there is no middle ground, there is no indifference. The dude deals in extremes. He was a terrible Nintendo fanboy until he switched to playstation and the Nintendo was trash in his opinion. The dude called the dreamcast trash for crying out loud. He's never just "meh" everything is amazing or horrible.

So...he's GAF incarnate?

 

[JJD]

By most, you mean like two, one of them being a Sony employee/developer. I think it's fair to say the reception has thus far been mixed.

Edit: ^^Make that three! Sort of.

I'm talking out of my ass here, but Sony's developers, or developers that are exclusive to PS4 are probably the ones that are going to have to work more because of PS4K.

They made games on a single target platform, and now they will have to target two hardware configurations, something that they did not have to do before.

I imagine that every other dev that does multiplatform development, specially PC development will be kinda comfortable targeting different hardware configurations.

 

[Daft Punk]

The more I see about this argument, the more it's becoming less of an actual problem and more of a "Well what if THIS or THAT happens?" I understand everyone's concerns, but is it really worth having a heart attack before getting all the details?

 

[Karu]

Pretty much that, with Colin there is no middle ground, there is no indifference. The dude deals in extremes. He was a terrible Nintendo fanboy until he switched to playstation and then Nintendo was trash in his opinion. The dude called the dreamcast trash for crying out loud. He's never just "meh" everything is amazing or horrible.

Not true.

 

[EventHorizon]

You don't know Colin if you think he is emotional. He is one of the most rational, emotionless people I know of.

Why are you in every thread about PS4K trying to belittle everyone who doesn't think its a great idea.

Umm...I am watching his rant right now and he is being emotional and irrational. You can't argue against what is plainly visibly on video. For example, this part which I am watching at the moment @17m30s is totally unhinged and devoid of any relevant facts. It is just Colin cussing up a storm because he thinks people would be made due to games coming with a sticker saying that they will look better on the Neo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqhBdCYymuQ&feature=youtu.be&t=17m30s

Yikes!

 

[……forgetit]

Not true.

Which part of what I said was not true? That has been 100% of my experience with the guy.

 

[Papacheeks]

And how many does Colin have?



You and other people's problem is that you are convinced that once the NEO comes out, devs will stop trying on the OG PS4. You forget that the OG PS4 is the base and THE console of the generation. Devs aren't going to work mainly on NEO first and then lazy port the game to the PS4.

The thing your not understanding from Jeff Getsman, IGN, and colin's emotional perspective, is this device essentially benefits no one but Sony. People who want tech get a more powerful console that developers may or may not take advantage of till much later.
But mainly the people who want this more than any group of consumers is Sony themselves. They are the market leader right now, they are outpacing everyone including themselves from previous gen, it makes no sense other than higher profit margins on hardware.

It only makes sense from a multidivision perspective to have this product. Developers from what I'v read have not complained about how to Develop on PS4. Games IQ are progressing very well and showing that these boxes were well tooled from the get go.
The reason for this thing to exist is to push other divisions like 4K content, 4k tv's nothing more. It doesn't add some better online experience, or make it so dx12 type api can be used.
It is there to sell other hardware that will grow their other failing divisions. ANd it makes no sense since they are already making money in new services that are starting to catch on.
Like PS VUE, PSN NOW which is starting to look like a better value as they slowly add more to it.
They for the most part are not losing shit tons of money hands over fist on the hardware like they have in the past. They are selling tons of digital games that equate to almost pure profit for them.

There is nothing wrong with the Playstation division. The only thing that I could think of was when they where building morpheus and saw the constraints AND LIMITATIONS OF ps4, they decided to go through with this box.
Even in the early days of PS4 cerny said it would take years to fully get tools, and development down to fully start utilizing these boxes.
If we started seeing games that didn't impress us and media outlets I would agree with everyone on this thread who is all for this machine.
But as it is, there is no need for this what so ever especially since they could easily hav a new box out by 2018-2019 that used a form of HBM2.

 

[mckmas8808]

If that's all you get out of my examples of discussion then there's no point in continuing conversation.

I'm not saying that will happen right away. But possibly as time goes on with vr there's possibly a chance of it happening just once that can set off a development chain reaction. I bet Nintendo had something like a mandate similar in place for most if not all of their 3DS titles. And looked what happened to hyrule warriors and xenoblade chronicles.

Imagine that with a bigger IP on a home console that has 50+ million owners.

I guess we'll see. Only time will tell.

 

[nib95]

I'm talking out of my ass here, but Sony's developers, or developers that are exclusive to PS4 are probably the ones that are going to have to work more because of PS4K.

They made games on a single target platform, and now they will have to target two hardware configurations, something that they did not have to do before.

I imagine that every other dev that does multiplatform development, specially PC development will be kinda comfortable targeting different hardware configurations.

Whilst true, they're also only required to work on the two Sony platforms, whereas multiplatform developers will need to work on or consider a multitude of other platforms, like the Xbox One, PC, NX, Xbox 1.5(?) etc, so their task is far more arduous and their development process and time far more constrained.

 

[Papacheeks]

The more I see about this argument, the more it's becoming less of an actual problem and more of a "Well what if THIS or THAT happens?" I understand everyone's concerns, but is it really worth having a heart attack before getting all the details?

Should watch this

 

[EventHorizon]

If that's all you get out of my examples of discussion then there's no point in continuing conversation.

I'm not saying that will happen right away. But possibly as time goes on with vr there's possibly a chance of it happening just once that can set off a development chain reaction. I bet Nintendo had something like a mandate similar in place for most if not all of their 3DS titles. And looked what happened to hyrule warriors and xenoblade chronicles.

Imagine that with a bigger IP on a home console that has 50+ million owners.

As for Hyrule Warriors Legends, it was a port from the more powerful Wii U system. If the new 3DS didn't exist, a port probably would not have been done at all, or if it did, only the new 3DS version would have been made.

Also note that Hyrule Warriors Legends released 5 years after the initial release of the 3DS. That is the equivalent of a generation anyway. For example the Xbox 360 released only 4 years after the original Xbox. In short the the 3DS version of the game was lucky to have been made at all, and if anything, the new 3DS helped it get made.

The same thing will happen with the PS4. It will be the lead platform for years to come. Then around the time the generation would have normally ended, mandatory support for the PS4 will stop and the PS5 will come out. I predict that going forward consoles will release every three year with a sliding window of mandatory support for the latest two consoles. That would give each console the equivalent of a 6 year generation.

 

[Boombox On]

Taking your mobile phone example, despite devices like the Galaxy s7 or iPhone 6S having such powerful GPU's for a mobile device, pretty much every mobile game out there is still not even close to really taking proper advantage of them. Instead users of these devices, such as me, get the same shitty looking games, only at slightly better framerates.

There's way more going on with that than just "they update phones yearly," such as

• Apple's development space being targeted towards more novice developers to make money at scale
• Apple's hard limit on the size of an app (When Bioshock was released, the limit was 2GB).
• Apple's app store design not favoring high-end content of nearly any kind.

Another reason why it's not a good idea to compare or draw parallels from mobiles to console gaming, is because people buy mobile phones because they do countless different things, and enhance people's lives in a huge multitude of ways. Gaming on a mobile phone is a tertiary additive, and as such consumers are less demanding of that area of development. With consoles it's an entirely different story. People are buying these expensive, somewhat niche (compared to mobile phones, TV's, cars etc) luxury products for the sole purpose of advanced gaming, where the demands and expectations are much higher. It's one of the reasons I think a completely iterative cycle, Eg if the PS5 was just a PS4K.5, would be detrimental to the industry and have a negative impact on sales and future adoption.

The end of this argument doesn't follow from the beginning. The high demands and expectations are a reason for faster upgrade cycles, not against them (if you want more up-to-date performance, you have the option now; If you don't, you don't need to get it). See PC Gaming as an example of that.

 

[nib95]

There's way more going on with that than just "they update phones yearly," such as

• Apple's development space being targeted towards more novice developers to make money at scale
• Apple's hard limit on the size of an app (When Bioshock was released, the limit was 2GB).
• Apple's app store design not favoring high-end content of nearly any kind.

The end of this argument doesn't follow from the beginning. The high demands and expectations are a reason for faster upgrade cycles, not against them (if you want more up-to-date performance, you have the option now; If you don't, you don't need to get it). See PC Gaming as an example of that.

I think you're misinterpreting my post. It wasn't an argument against a mid cycle incremental update, but a permanent state of iterative updates. Eg if there was no new complete refreshed generation, and newer hardware was always held back by older hardware, the way the PS4K is to the PS4.

If we were in a constant cycle of iterative hardware releases, we absolutely would not get the same level of updates and advancements in tech, performance, design etc, and they would instead be far more limited than they historically have been in the console space. Due to the whole, being held back by the lowest common denominator factor.

If however the PS4K is just a stop gap, and the PS5 is still a thing, Eg a true generational leap that is not held back by the PS4K, then the above wouldn't be true, and we would see a substantial upgrade in tech and fidelity in games, as is traditional to console gaming.

 

[mckmas8808]

The thing your not understanding from Jeff Getsman, IGN, and colin's emotional perspective, is this device essentially benefits no one but Sony. People who want tech get a more powerful console that developers may or may not take advantage of till much later.
But mainly the people who want this more than any group of consumers is Sony themselves. They are the market leader right now, they are outpacing everyone including themselves from previous gen, it makes no sense other than higher profit margins on hardware.

It only makes sense from a multidivision perspective to have this product. Developers from what I'v read have not complained about how to Develop on PS4. Games IQ are progressing very well and showing that these boxes were well tooled from the get go.
The reason for this thing to exist is to push other divisions like 4K content, 4k tv's nothing more. It doesn't add some better online experience, or make it so dx12 type api can be used.
It is there to sell other hardware that will grow their other failing divisions. ANd it makes no sense since they are already making money in new services that are starting to catch on.
Like PS VUE, PSN NOW which is starting to look like a better value as they slowly add more to it.
They for the most part are not losing shit tons of money hands over fist on the hardware like they have in the past. They are selling tons of digital games that equate to almost pure profit for them.

There is nothing wrong with the Playstation division. The only thing that I could think of was when they where building morpheus and saw the constraints AND LIMITATIONS OF ps4, they decided to go through with this box.
Even in the early days of PS4 cerny said it would take years to fully get tools, and development down to fully start utilizing these boxes.
If we started seeing games that didn't impress us and media outlets I would agree with everyone on this thread who is all for this machine.
But as it is, there is no need for this what so ever especially since they could easily hav a new box out by 2018-2019 that used a form of HBM2.

If it only benefits Sony, then why should any of us care. Just let it come out, not sell, and then die like the PSP GO.

And are you sure the PS5 could come out in 2018 with HBM2? Couldn't this be the reason why the PS4K is coming just to be used as a "stop gap" for some people that can't wait until maybe 2020?

 

[Jacksinthe]

Do you mean if the PS5 is also iterative, and there is a constant cycle of iterative releases similar to how games work on Android and iOS now? See this is where I think a long term iterative cycle is actually far worse for developer expression, technological advancement and the creative process, as more powerful systems will still be at the behest of less powerful ones, and developers would have to forever think of the lowest common denominator when making their games.

Taking your mobile phone example, despite devices like the Galaxy s7 or iPhone 6S having such powerful GPU's for a mobile device, pretty much every mobile game out there is still not even close to really taking proper advantage of them. Instead users of these devices, such as me, get the same shitty looking games, only at slightly better framerates.

Another reason why it's not a good idea to compare or draw parallels from mobiles to console gaming, is because people buy mobile phones because they do countless different things, and enhance people's lives in a huge multitude of ways. Gaming on a mobile phone is a tertiary additive, and as such consumers are less demanding of that area of development. With consoles it's an entirely different story. People are buying these expensive, somewhat niche (compared to mobile phones, TV's, cars etc) luxury products for the sole purpose of advanced gaming, where the demands and expectations are much higher. It's one of the reasons I think a completely iterative cycle, Eg if the PS5 was just a PS4K.5, would be detrimental to the industry and have a negative impact on sales and future adoption.

I would draw parallels with PC architecture and mobile OS.

Devs already try to make games to fit on the lowest common denominator with PC anyhow. There's a natural cycle that plays with hardware on that side. The console front cant move nearly as fast.

One of the reservations about 0.5 designs is predictability. This isn't the norm which makes the list for immediacy more apparent vs reconciling the long game.

I'm pinched for time but will come back later. Don't want you to think I'm being short with you, bro.

 

[Boombox On]

I think you're misinterpreting my post. It wasn't an argument against a mid cycle incremental update, but a permanent state of iterative updates. Eg if there was no new complete referred generation, and newer hardware was always held back by older hardware the way the PS4K is to the PS4.

Doesn't change my argument at all (and you have been really see-sawing between if the PS4K will be held back by the PS4 and if the PS4 will be held back by the PS4K for some time).

If we were in a constant cycle of iterative hardware releases, we absolutely would not get more up to date or advanced tech, performance etc, and advancements would be far more limited.

Yes, we would. Again, look at PC gaming as an example. Advancements there happen at a comparatively rapid pace specifically because the frequency of updates is so high. And considering Sony and Microsoft use components based on consumer-grade PC parts, adopting that pace is the obvious thing to do.

 

[Papacheeks]

If it only benefits Sony, then why should any of us care. Just let it come out, not sell, and then die like the PSP GO.

And are you sure the PS5 could come out in 2018 with HBM2? Couldn't this be the reason why the PS4K is coming just to be used as a "stop gap" for some people that can't wait until maybe 2020?

Thing is because of how strong the brand and consoles are(psp is a bad example since handhelds are dead outside of nintendo) people are going to buy this. Mainly tech people and i foresee slowly this new model phasing out OG PS4.
To your second question why would Yoshida be saying "if, we have a PS5". There's this lorne lanning interview where he talks about a conversation he had with Yoshida. And shu was very coy, and said a big if there's another PS5.

They want this model, they want to make lots of money off of hardware and the way to do that is following a iterative model that will in the long run possibly destroy console gaming as we know it.
I don't usually see eye to eye with Jeff gertsman because he sounds so jaded when talking about video games in general. But when he talks about the industry with his knowledge and long history in the medium that this move is a shaky move that is not necessarily a great long term idea, I tend to listen.

This has a huge chance to impact the industry should other companies follow suite after the tech people buy this new model and show Sony people are willing to pay for it. EVEN though those few million do not represent the total 50+ million or whatever.
It's s super slippery slope that can go either way.

I want to be proven to be overreacting and be just a old kook who just doesn;t understand the evolution this industry is going through.
But with Xbox as a platform through an OS and maybe not a dedicated console, and with possible trickle down with Nintendo going iterative console release as well, it doesn't paint something I look forward too.

 

[nib95]

I would draw parallels with PC architecture and mobile OS.

Devs already try to make games to fit on the lowest common denominator with PC anyhow. There's a natural cycle that plays with hardware on that side. The console front cant move nearly as fast.

One of the reservations about 0.5 designs is predictability. This isn't the norm which makes the list for immediacy more apparent vs reconciling the long game.

I'm pinched for time but will come back later. Don't want you to think I'm being short with you, bro.

But I also feel like PC gaming has effectively been stifled and technologically diminished by console gaming, or the common lowest denominators, and with it, top end GPU's are inadvertently offering less value proposition. I really wouldn't want the same to happen to console gaming. I'd hate that. It's bad enough that most PC games are just up resed or tweaked versions of console games, I wouldn't want the PS5 to be forever locked in to having to just have improved versions of PS4K games. Instead I want developers to work from the ground up on the PS5, to extract the absolute maximum from it without consideration of a lower common denominator, especially with exclusives.

Naturally the PS4K is different as it's not a next generation system, but more of a mid cycle luxury iterative upgrade.

 

[EventHorizon]

The thing your not understanding from Jeff Getsman, IGN, and colin's emotional perspective, is this device essentially benefits no one but Sony. People who want tech get a more powerful console that developers may or may not take advantage of till much later.
But mainly the people who want this more than any group of consumers is Sony themselves. They are the market leader right now, they are outpacing everyone including themselves from previous gen, it makes no sense other than higher profit margins on hardware.

That simply does not add up. If gamers don't see any value in the Neo then they simply won't buy it. The PS4 is going to have by far they larger market share for years to come and as a result will be the lead platform for games. If what you say is true then no one will buy the Neo and their will be no problem.

However quite to the contrary it does make sense for Sony reduce the time between releasing capability upgrades to their consoles. Here are some reasons why...

• Consoles are no longer sold at a loss. As a result Sony does not need to extend the time before upgrading specs to recoup costs.
• Because consoles are no longer subsidized, they are released with lesser hardware specs than normal. That means the generation will start showing its age sooner than previous generations. To avoid a drop off in software sales, newer hardware needs to be released to satisfy the hardcore.
• Much of the development cost of hardware tech is being borne by AMD. All Sony has to do is use their newer hardware without having to invest the huge sums that is normally required to launch a new upgrade in specs
• The architecture has now stabilized around the x86 making full compatibility possible. As a result, a half-gen increase will not cause developers to create all new engines and development tools
• The half-gen release is a defensive move to combat such a release by Microsoft. For all the reasons stated here this half-gen increase was all but inevitable and it would be marketplace suicide to not have an answer to a competitor releasing an upgraded console.
• This actually makes things a bit easier for developers when you look at it long term. They will only have to marginally support the Neo at first, and can gradually increase support as time goes by at their own discretion. Then when the PS5 is released the jump in performance won't be as harsh which will make the transition easier.

 

[nib95]

Doesn't change my argument at all (and you have been really see-sawing between if the PS4K will be held back by the PS4 and if the PS4 will be held back by the PS4K for some time).



Yes, we would. Again, look at PC gaming as an example. Advancements there happen at a comparatively rapid pace specifically because the frequency of updates is so high. And considering Sony and Microsoft use components based on consumer-grade PC parts, adopting that pace is the obvious thing to do.

Advancements to the hardware itself happen at a rapid pace in the PC space, but not with the actual games and associated fidelity or ambition of design itself, which is precisely my point. The latest hardware and specs mean little if you're constantly held back by the lowest common denominators. No chance in hell we'd get a game as advanced or technically accomplished as Uncharted 4 on the PS4, if there had to still be a PS3 version of the same game, only pared back.

 

[Papacheeks]

That simply does not add up. If gamers don't see any value in the Neo then they simply won't buy it. The PS4 is going to have by far they larger market share for years to come and as a result will be the lead platform for games. If what you say is true then no one will buy the Neo and their will be no problem.

However quite to the contrary it does make sense for Sony reduce the time between releasing capability upgrades to their consoles. Here are some reasons why...

• Consoles are no longer sold at a loss. As a result Sony does not need to extend the time before upgrading specs to recoup costs.
• Because consoles are no longer subsidized, they are released with lesser hardware specs than normal. That means the generation will start showing its age sooner than previous generations. To avoid a drop off in software sales, newer hardware needs to be released to satisfy the hardcore.
• Much of the development cost of hardware tech is being borne by AMD. All Sony has to do is use their newer hardware without having to invest the huge sums that is normally required to launch a new upgrade in specs
• The architecture has now stabilized around the x86 making full compatibility possible. As a result, a half-gen increase will not cause developers to create all new engines and development tools
• The half-gen release is a defensive move to combat such a release by Microsoft. For all the reasons stated here this half-gen increase was all but inevitable and it would be marketplace suicide to not have an answer to a competitor releasing an upgraded console.
• This actually makes things a bit easier for developers when you look at it long term. They will only have to marginally support the Neo at first, and can gradually increase support as time goes by at their own discretion. Then when the PS5 is released the jump in performance won't be as harsh which will make the transition easier.

You do not have any proof of what developers can or can't do. It's up to them to decide what's important when designing their game. I'll come back to this post when Sucker Punch, naughty dog are still cranking games that turn heads next year.

Sony doesn't have the weaker hardware compared to XBox, they are the one that needs it. Let them figure their shit out.
There is no reason for this, when your market leader, and have the whole industry happy with your console.
If third party people are bitching about their shit code running on PS4/xbox it's on them to evaluate their situation.
Being in X86 already will make the transitions easier to a new PS5? Having a more powerful console doesn't push them out of desperation to be creative in how the develop. As we'eve seen in the past consoles.

Being constrained pushes them to push the system to its limits and develop new tools, and techniques that create these amazing titles. Look at Gureilla and Killzone:shadow fall, now look at that color, IQ and see how they applied it to a open world game in HORIZON.
Giving them more power just enables them to brunt force it and not iterate as much on their toolset, and engine optimiztion which is why we see such a difference in first PS3 games to later ones.

 

[GlamFM]

You don't know Colin if you think he is emotional. He is one of the most rational, emotionless people I know of.

Why are you in every thread about PS4K trying to belittle everyone who doesn't think its a great idea.

I suggest watching the video.

 

[EventHorizon]

They want this model, they want to make lots of money off of hardware and the way to do that is following a iterative model that will in the long run possibly destroy console gaming as we know it.

Sony doesn't make much money selling hardware consoles. They probably just break even for new releases. If they really wanted to maximize hardware profits they'd ride the PS4 till it dropped dead. They don't do that because they actually make their money on subscriptions and licensing, and to do that they have to have hardware out there capable of playing games people want to play. They can't let what happened last gen happen again where the generation went on too long and started affecting software sales.

But I also feel like PC gaming has effectively been stifled and technologically diminished by console gaming, or the common lowest denominators, and with it, top end GPU's are inadvertently offering less value proposition. I really wouldn't want the same to happen to console gaming.

It is true that the highest end hardware isn't fully utilized when it is first released, and that will be true of the Neo. It is just a truth of the world that early adopters don't get the biggest bang for their buck. The hardware costs more and because of the smaller install base it gets supported less. There is nothing new about that here.

However you are forgetting that the Neo is releasing early. It is not going to be fully utilized when it is released, but given a year or two after that it will be. Releasing early and getting delayed full support cancels each other out. Actually all this does is move the performance increase up a bit because the new hardware will be able to just brute force that at launch, and then smooth out the performance curve as smaller hardware increases come every 3 years after instead of larger increases coming every 6 years.

 

[Razgreez]

Advancements to the hardware itself happen at a rapid pace in the PC space, but not with the actual games and associated fidelity or ambition of design itself, which is precisely my point. The latest hardware and specs mean little if you're constantly held back by the lowest common denominators. No chance in hell we'd get a game as advanced or technically accomplished as Uncharted 4 on the PS4, if there had to still be a PS3 version of the same game, only pared back.

You're again conveniently ignoring the logical possibility that developers can develop applications which cater for less than the common denominator and are more technically advanced. They risk alienating those with weaker hardware and are technically limiting themselves to a smaller portion of the customer base but such applications are also necessary to entice those self same customers into purchasing an upgrade. It's basic marketing and economics

 

[Asmodai48]

Lol hes whining about the PS4K games looking better than the PS4 version. No shit? I'm sure that's what PS4K owners are buying it for.

 

[Servbot24]

Lol hes whining about the PS4K games looking better than the PS4 version. No shit? I'm sure that's what PS4K owners are buying it for.

I just don't understand why he suddenly thinks that Uncharted 4 looks like shit just because there's something else out there in the world that has a little bit better resolution or whatever.

 

[CosmicQueso]

I just don't understand why he suddenly thinks that Uncharted 4 looks like shit just because there's something else out there in the world that has a little bit better resolution or whatever.

There's something about the psychology of the shared experience, that everyone on a gen is looking and playing the exact same thing buried in his position it seems.

 

[mckmas8808]

Thing is because of how strong the brand and consoles are(psp is a bad example since handhelds are dead outside of nintendo) people are going to buy this. Mainly tech people and i foresee slowly this new model phasing out OG PS4.
To your second question why would Yoshida be saying "if, we have a PS5". There's this lorne lanning interview where he talks about a conversation he had with Yoshida. And shu was very coy, and said a big if there's another PS5..

Sony does that every single generation. They never talk about the next generation early. There will be a PS7 some day, but there's no reason to talk about that now.

 

[Boombox On]

Advancements to the hardware itself happen at a rapid pace in the PC space, but not with the actual games and associated fidelity or ambition of design

Yes it also does. This is the exact reason why PC games tend to have graphics settings; you can scale graphical fidelity as much as you want on a PC. It's also why PC racing simulators have been a tier above console racing simulators in mechanical fidelity for quite some time (Project Cars, Assetto Corsa, and DIRT Rally all started as PC titles). And that's not even mentioning stuff like Star Citizen.

So ambition of design being bottlenecked by quickly improving performance isn't it, especially now at a time when the vast majority of games released on consoles are also on PC.

 

[Beerham]

Am I being naive if I think this shouldn't be much of an issue? Aren't developers already coding on a PC and then start stripping aesthetic features to reach target performance and fidelity for the given hardware? Would it be that complicated to have an option which changes the frame rate cap or adds texture enhancement, or resolution bump?

 

[mckmas8808]

You're again conveniently ignoring the logical possibility that developers can develop applications which cater for less than the common denominator and are more technically advanced. They risk alienating those with weaker hardware and are technically limiting themselves to a smaller portion of the customer base but such applications are also necessary to entice those self same customers into purchasing an upgrade. It's basic marketing and economics

But they don't do that now, so why would they start doing that with the NEO?

 

[potatohead]

OMG the PS4K is the Jose Bautista batflip of the Console world. Flashy, showy, some people like it, some people hate it.

Based Bautista

 

[Lemondish]

OMG the PS4K is the Jose Bautista batflip of the Console world. Flashy, showy, some people like it, some people hate it.

Those who hated that batflip are opponents of fun. I bet there's an overlap and they hate the PS4K also because they hate fun.

 

[EventHorizon]

You do not have any proof of what developers can or can't do. It's up to them to decide what's important when designing their game. I'll come back to this post when Sucker Punch, naughty dog are still cranking games that turn heads next year.

The capability jump between the 7th and 8th generation was smaller than normal. That is a simple fact and has been discussed on NeoGaf repeatedly.

Sony doesn't have the weaker hardware compared to XBox, they are the one that needs it. Let them figure their shit out.

There is no reason for this, when your market leader, and have the whole industry happy with your console.

If third party people are bitching about their shit code running on PS4/xbox it's on them to evaluate their situation.

When Microsoft releases their upgraded console, it will be more powerful than the PS4. That is what Sony needs to have an answer for. It takes years to design a new console. Sony has to be proactive. They can't just wait and react to microsoft because then it would be too late.

Nintendo was the market leader once. Sony lost market share in the US to Microsoft. Nothing is a given, and you have to always be competing. Waiting around is a great way to get left behind.

Being in X86 already will make the transitions easier to a new PS5? Having a more powerful console doesn't push them out of desperation to be creative in how the develop. As we'eve seen in the past consoles.

You aren't understanding my point. Console generations were as long as they were for a reason. The length was at an equilibrium due to the forces I outlined in my prior post. Those underlying forces are changing which then changes the length between hardware upgrades. It's like pinpointing price on a supply and demand graph. If for example the supply changes, the price automatically finds a new equilibrium. Likewise being able to release new hardware cheaper than was previously possible and with less disruption to developers is going to shorten the time between hardware upgrades. That btw, is exactly what is happening.

Being constrained pushes them to push the system to its limits and develop new tools, and techniques that create these amazing titles. Look at Gureilla and Killzone:shadow fall, now look at that color, IQ and see how they applied it to a open world game in HORIZON.

Giving them more power just enables them to brunt force it and not iterate as much on their toolset, and engine optimiztion which is why we see such a difference in first PS3 games to later ones.

I'm sorry, but I have to point out that your business sense has been severely absent in your comment. The PS4 is going to have by far the larger install base. Developers are going to make it the lead platform and optimize for it because that is where the money will be. Even you seem to agree, so I am not even sure what you are complaining about. In this very same comment of yours I am replying to you said:

"I'll come back to this post when Sucker Punch, naughty dog are still cranking games that turn heads next year."​

 

[Jacksinthe]

Being in X86 already will make the transitions easier to a new PS5? Having a more powerful console doesn't push them out of desperation to be creative in how the develop. As we'eve seen in the past consoles.

Being constrained pushes them to push the system to its limits and develop new tools, and techniques that create these amazing titles. Look at Gureilla and Killzone:shadow fall, now look at that color, IQ and see how they applied it to a open world game in HORIZON.

Giving them more power just enables them to brunt force it and not iterate as much on their toolset, and engine optimiztion which is why we see such a difference in first PS3 games to later ones.

Hey bud.

Pick one:

1) Longer development cycles focused on constantly creating new tools to squeeze what's in our brains into pixels.

2) Shorter development cycles focused on just turning what's in our brains into pixels.

Call me crazy, but I'll take door number 2. Lower cost, less stress, less time, etc.

 

[Lemondish]

I think PS4 'Neo' detractors are missing the point. Their arguments are always about equality, saying people who bought the original console will feel ripped off, also about devs having to spend more time/resources developing.

I wonder when developers put a game on PC, how do they handle all the different hardware? I wouldn't think that's such a big issue, they could just target the original console and then add some perks for the new one.

Also, I bought an original PS4 and feel totally ok with an upgraded PS4 coming out, it gives you choice, the games were not going to look better anyways with the current hardware, and at the time I paid for what was good tech. Now I would love to have the option to upgrade...

As long as they support each console for at least 5-6 years nobody should be angry with this IMHO.

Wait, I bought an original PlayStation and you're telling me Sony released a PlayStation 4?! I feel ripped off!

 

[mckmas8808]

Those who hated that batflip are opponents of fun. I bet there's an overlap and they hate the PS4K also because they hate fun.

LOL! So true.

Hey bud.

Pick one:

1) Longer development cycles focused on constantly creating new tools to squeeze what's in our brains into pixels.

2) Shorter development cycles focused on just turning what's in our brains into pixels.

Call me crazy, but I'll take door number 2. Lower cost, less stress, less time, etc.

Now this is interesting. Jacksinthe what if the PS5 came out in 2020 and used the same dev tools, consumer OS, but had 8 times more GPU and RAM and 5 times more CPU power?

How would that make you feel as a dev?

 

[CosmicQueso]

Those who hated that batflip are opponents of fun. I bet there's an overlap and they hate the PS4K also because they hate fun.

Something something "tradition" something something "unwritten rules" something something "it shows up the other guys".

Hmmmm

 

[Abinash117]

Do you mean if the PS5 is also iterative, and there is a constant cycle of iterative releases similar to how games work on Android and iOS now? See this is where I think a long term iterative cycle is actually far worse for developer expression, technological advancement and the creative process, as more powerful systems will still be at the behest of less powerful ones, and developers would have to forever think of the lowest common denominator when making their games.

Taking your mobile phone example, despite devices like the Galaxy s7 or iPhone 6S having such powerful GPU's for a mobile device, pretty much every mobile game out there is still not even close to really taking proper advantage of them. Instead users of these devices, such as me, get the same shitty looking games, only at slightly better framerates.

Another reason why it's not a good idea to compare or draw parallels from mobiles to console gaming, is because people buy mobile phones because they do countless different things, and enhance people's lives in a huge multitude of ways. Gaming on a mobile phone is a tertiary additive, and as such consumers are less demanding of that area of development. With consoles it's an entirely different story. People are buying these expensive, somewhat niche (compared to mobile phones, TV's, cars etc) luxury products for the sole purpose of advanced gaming, where the demands and expectations are much higher. It's one of the reasons I think a completely iterative cycle, Eg if the PS5 was just a PS4K.5, would be detrimental to the industry and have a
negative impact on sales and future adoption.

To me it seems like doing iterative consoles is cheaper than making new gens every so often. I think R&D, designing, and production cost probably cost millions of dollars for a brand new console and probably involves many, many people. At the moment I think Sony isn't still completely fine, and doing a new console like that of a very advanced PS5 probably is going to cost them a lot, you might be right that these might extend the console life cycles. I don't imagine them creating a new SKU and supporting the current one while releasing a brand new console a 2 years after.

 

[Killing_Joke]

Meh.... watching this right now:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqhBdCYymuQ

Yeah, I´m taking his tweet with a grain of salt....

EDIT: A huge grain of salt actually, he´s waaaaaaay too emotional over this to be taken seriously.

This video is almost a meltdown.

10min in and i want to rip my ears off. Now this is all about poor developers...the same poor developers who get SHIT on from great heights when they announce 900p or 30fps.

People forget 360 didn't even have a damn HDMI port at launch. Or that they both launched with 20/60GB HDDs. I know it's apples and oranges but to me it's the same shit. People want 4K so here's a newer version that supports 4K. That's it.

If PS4 OG games start to look worse then usual then we'll cross that bridge when we get there. No reason to assume ALL studios or even the majority of them are going to shit on PS4 OG.