PS4 Pro

[Ronnie]

How many of you are planning on getting a Playstation Neo when it's released? To those that are, you honestly don't see a problem with giving Sony another 300 quid in the, supposedly, same generation? It's like their $599 PS3 disaster all over again, only this time, they'll have managed to get it in two payments, instead of one. Very clever

[Ashley]

I like to make my decisions once all the facts are available so I'll get back to you later.

[Serebii]

How many of you are planning on getting a Playstation Neo when it's released? To those that are, you honestly don't see a problem with giving Sony another 300 quid in the, supposedly, same generation? It's like their $599 PS3 disaster all over again, only this time, they'll have managed to get it in two payments, instead of one. Very clever

I might, yeah. They're finally coming out with games that are enticing to me (Mass Effect, Red Dead etc.) so when I finally submit, I may as well go all in.

[S.C.G]

I'm certainly not intending on buying a new PS4 if it's just for the ability to play games in 4K for which I'd need to buy a new TV for anyway so on that basis it's definitely a no.

 

But as Ashley says, we don't know all the facts yet.

 

I can see it being a viable option for some though, perhaps those who don't yet have a PS4 but recently bought a 4K TV or are planning to, or anyone who can say that they've definitely had enough value out of their PS4 since owning it from launch or after to justify buying a new one; I've had one since launch and while I've played a good handful of exclusive games on it - indeed I own a lot more sealed games yet to play, almost as many as I have for my Wii U now! - but in almost exactly two and a half years, I haven't really got the full value out of the system because of all those untapped games I haven't had a chance to play yet.

 

The Wii U on the other hand? I definitely feel like I've had more value out of it but I'm more than happy to wait another year or so for a new console but as soon as the new machine is out - whatever form it will take - I'll almost certainly buy it but I intend to still play my Wii U & 3DS as well of course.

 

As for the Xbox One... nowhere near enough value to justify an upgrade, only just enough games to justify me keeping it. (And most of those are on Rare Replay)

[Sheikah]

How many of you are planning on getting a Playstation Neo when it's released? To those that are, you honestly don't see a problem with giving Sony another 300 quid in the, supposedly, same generation? It's like their $599 PS3 disaster all over again, only this time, they'll have managed to get it in two payments, instead of one. Very clever

Did anyone see a problem paying £200+ for a N3DS after maybe already buying the XL not long ago? I'm guessing not, because it was optional. If they bought it, it's because they saw it as a good investment.

 

Do people also see a problem that major phone companies release one new flagship every year?

 

It seems to me that you are unhappy that other people might have something better than you. Rather than appreciate what is in front of you, you base your happiness on whether there is a new model that other people might be enjoying. If you think about it, if the original PS4 keeps going then there is essentially no difference, other than your perception of the better deal out there.

 

And really, that attitude is what stumps me. The PC has always, always been the better deal graphically - consoles are outdated automatically in the face of PC. If you're the kind of person who hates there being a better deal out there in terms of performance then home consoles are not for you.

[Ronnie]

I might, yeah. They're finally coming out with games that are enticing to me (Mass Effect, Red Dead etc.) so when I finally submit, I may as well go all in.

 

Sorry I should have been more clear, those owners that already have a PS4, will you be looking to upgrade to the neo with flashier graphics, and if so, do you see a problem with basically giving Sony £600 to the PS4 in the same generation.

[Falcon_BlizZACK]

Sorry I should have been more clear, those owners that already have a PS4, will you be looking to upgrade to the neo with flashier graphics, and if so, do you see a problem with basically giving Sony £600 to the PS4 in the same generation.

 

I guess its your perception of "giving Sony £600" that's making your point a bit misleading - People obviously give money to companies for something in return, and if people are happy to pay money for an upgraded variant more power to them. Its not a scam, its a choice.

 

I have no idea about the PS4K, but the most relevant console that has done what you are opposing (as Sheikah mentioned), is the New 3DS.

[Ronnie]

I have no idea about the PS4K, but the most relevant console that has done what you are opposing (as Sheikah mentioned), is the New 3DS.

 

99% of games look and play exactly the same on the regular 3DS and the new 3DS. It's more akin to the PS3 Slim than the PS4K.

 

I guess its your perception of "giving Sony £600" that's making your point a bit misleading - People obviously give money to companies for something in return, and if people are happy to pay money for an upgraded variant more power to them. Its not a scam, its a choice

 

Why didn't this upgraded hardware come out at release, two years ago? Answer: they wanted to milk their consumers twice. Everyone pissed themselves laughing at PS3's $599 price tag, but Sony have the last laugh basically charging a big chunk of their consumers that and more for the PS4. I also wouldn't bet against a second upgrade in 2019 before the PS5 in 2021.

Edited May 27, 2016 by Ronnie
Automerged Doublepost

[Goron_3]

99% of games look and play exactly the same on the regular 3DS and the new 3DS. It's more akin to the PS3 Slim than the PS4K.

 

 

 

Why didn't this upgraded hardware come out at release, two years ago? Answer: they wanted to milk their consumers twice. Everyone pissed themselves laughing at PS3's $599 price tag, but Sony have the last laugh basically charging a big chunk of their consumers that and more for the PS4. I also wouldn't bet against a second upgrade in 2019 before the PS5 in 2021.

 

Actually the 3D and loading speeds in games are significantly better on the n3DS. It does this crazy eye tracking stuff which means that older 3DS title look incredible.

 

As a current PS4 owner I see no reason why I should get a 'PS4K' especially as I have no interest in getting a 4K TV. I would be much more interested in getting a PS4 slim. I'm not one of those people that buys a new phone or tablet every 12 months - I just don't see the value in it. Once this generation ends I'll pick up a PS5 but I'm very happy with my console at the moment.

[Sheikah]

99% of games look and play exactly the same on the regular 3DS and the new 3DS. It's more akin to the PS3 Slim than the PS4K.

So it's just about resolution to you? Why is that the only factor to consider? Better 3D effect in all games, reduced loading times + OS snappiness, more powerful system so that it can run exclusive games (which even the Neo isn't supposed to have). And that includes all the SNES games - N3DS only.

 

And regarding your question about will people upgrade. Well I bought the N3DS XL while having the 3DS XL already. I then sold my 3DS XL for £100 or so. It was a very good upgrade given the 3D effect alone. I liked having the choice; why do you want people to have less choice?

[Ronnie]

So it's just about resolution to you? Why is that the only factor to consider? Better 3D effect in all games, reduced loading times + OS snappiness, more powerful system so that it can run exclusive games (which even the Neo isn't supposed to have). And that includes all the SNES games - N3DS only.

 

And regarding your question about will people upgrade. Well I bought the N3DS XL while having the 3DS XL already. I then sold my 3DS XL for £100 or so. It was a very good upgrade given the 3D effect alone. I liked having the choice; why do you want people to have less choice?

 

The PS4K isn't (allegedly) just about 4K resolution and you know it.

 

I don't want people to have less choice, I want Sony to be more honest with their consumers and not announce a heavily upgraded PS4 two and half years into a generation. If they have a decent trade in offer than that'll help a little.

 

I'm surprised (but thinking about it, not actually that surprised) people here are giving the PS4K a free pass, reaction on gaf seems fairly negative, or at least far more negative than here.

[bob]

We probably don't give a shit because none of us are going to buy one.

[Ashley]

I think what you're finding is people are trying to provide a balanced response to your deeply negative (and repetitive, I'm sure you used that exact last paragraph a few months ago) responses. Others have expressed concern, but it comes down to not knowing all the details yet.

 

"I want Sony to be more honest with their consumers and not announce a heavily upgraded PS4 two and half years into a generation"

 

They've not announced anything yet so until they do maybe don't criticise them for something they have yet to do?

 

As you yourself said, who knows what the trade in details are like. Or the bundles. Or the launch. Or anything.

[Pestneb]

Why didn't this upgraded hardware come out at release, two years ago? Answer: they wanted to milk their consumers twice. Everyone pissed themselves laughing at PS3's $599 price tag, but Sony have the last laugh basically charging a big chunk of their consumers that and more for the PS4. I also wouldn't bet against a second upgrade in 2019 before the PS5 in 2021.

 

Ronnie I think this is what Nintendo plan on doing. Rather than doing a tonne of R&D all in, do a bit of R&D, implement, see how it goes, kinda like a beta for their next hardware iteration. Think about it, especially if PS starts releasing 2 consoles each generation (original, console+) with both intercompatible, it makes good sense for Nintendo to do much the same. Also it would allow Nintendo to make up the gap in power... doing a BIG jump to out do PS4&X1 would be silly, they need to make a solid home console now and then the next one close up the gap further and so on.

 

Having smaller generations not only allows them to catch up, it also reduces the cost of mis-steps. The gamepad didn't work out like they hoped, a Wii U 1.5 could have refocused, maybe have made it a more traditional console that would work with an app on a smartphone/tablet to emulate the gamepad (I don't care how possible.impossible that would have been...)

So I imagine the NX will be a 3 year machine, NX games maybe work on Wii U with lesser graphics and only support gamepad through off tv play. NX2 games work on NX (but not the Wii U) Some NX3 games will work on NX, all on NX2.. 3 years later NX4 no games run on NX (which would by then be 9 years old) only a few work on NX2 etc. So the generations are both longer and shorter at the same time. If NX development tools are really nice (more importantly NX2 :P) so they allow scalable games, that is possible. IF NX dev is a bitch... probably that would only be the dream and "twist" of the NX.. but not the reality

 

idk.. just the way I see it. I'd quite like that reality.

[Goron_3]

Ronnie I think this is what Nintendo plan on doing. Rather than doing a tonne of R&D all in, do a bit of R&D, implement, see how it goes, kinda like a beta for their next hardware iteration. Think about it, especially if PS starts releasing 2 consoles each generation (original, console+) with both intercompatible, it makes good sense for Nintendo to do much the same. Also it would allow Nintendo to make up the gap in power... doing a BIG jump to out do PS4&X1 would be silly, they need to make a solid home console now and then the next one close up the gap further and so on.

 

Having smaller generations not only allows them to catch up, it also reduces the cost of mis-steps. The gamepad didn't work out like they hoped, a Wii U 1.5 could have refocused, maybe have made it a more traditional console that would work with an app on a smartphone/tablet to emulate the gamepad (I don't care how possible.impossible that would have been...)

So I imagine the NX will be a 3 year machine, NX games maybe work on Wii U with lesser graphics and only support gamepad through off tv play. NX2 games work on NX (but not the Wii U) Some NX3 games will work on NX, all on NX2.. 3 years later NX4 no games run on NX (which would by then be 9 years old) only a few work on NX2 etc. So the generations are both longer and shorter at the same time. If NX development tools are really nice (more importantly NX2 :P) so they allow scalable games, that is possible. IF NX dev is a bitch... probably that would only be the dream and "twist" of the NX.. but not the reality

 

idk.. just the way I see it. I'd quite like that reality.

 

Iwata has said as much. Forward compatibility is definitely the way consoles are going.

[Josh64]

I really don't see the issue at all. All PS4 games are compatible on both the old and 'neo' version as far as we know, and you pay extra to get a neo which will have flashier graphics. The reason they didn't release the neo at launch, I'm assuming, is to avoid another $599 situation.

 

I don't see how this is different to new iPhones being released every year, new PC parts or things such as the New 3DS, unless all of those send you into a fit of rage too.

[dazzybee]

Difference is that Sony and MS will be forcing developers to have the games function on standard XBO/PS4, so porting isn't an issue. There won't be that much of a difference

 

That's IF they stick to it. So I hope porting won't be affected too.

 

As for neo, depending on what it actually does, whether psvr is improved and I want to go all in on it, I may get a ps4 neo... Which is weird because the ps4 is easily my most disappointing console probably ever; but psvr appeals to me, I want a 4K disc player, if the price make sense based on that I'll probably do it.

 

I do think people on here are overly harsh on Ronnie though. It's almost like when Wii went people needed someone else to lynch

Edited May 27, 2016 by dazzybee

[Zechs Merquise]

This discussion has been carried out in a way that literally paints the PS4K as providing games that just look a little better, which is completely disingenuous.

 

If a PS4 ran at 1080 and 60fps and the PS4K ran at 4K and 60fps, the issue would simply be an upgraded console that provided games that looked a little better.

 

However the big issue with the PS4 has been games that run with frame rates that dip below 30fps. So the issue will be that games may well be optimised to run on the PS4K, meaning that those wishing to play it on the original PS4 will suffer noticeably lower performance.

 

The reason those saying it is just like a PC are talking rubbish, is because those who play on PCs know that if you have older hardware you cab reduce the graphical fidelity of games in order to increase their performance. So two different systems can both output 60fps game play by altering the level of detail, effects and shading in the game.

 

Really, the PS4K is going to offer the chance to play games at an optimal level and at 60fps, whilst the PS4 will offer the less optimal experience. So Sony are asking gamers who want to experience all their games at the best possible frame rate to pony up another £300. That is why people are annoyed.

 

All those defending this move, if you are genuinely happy playing your games knowing they were optimised for your system and playing them at a lower frame rate, good for you, but you can hardly criticise those that feel ripped off for buying a system that they now need to upgrade in order to play games in the best and most fluid way.

[Mr_Master_X2]

This discussion has been carried out in a way that literally paints the PS4K as providing games that just look a little better, which is completely disingenuous.

 

If a PS4 ran at 1080 and 60fps and the PS4K ran at 4K and 60fps, the issue would simply be an upgraded console that provided games that looked a little better.

 

However the big issue with the PS4 has been games that run with frame rates that dip below 30fps. So the issue will be that games may well be optimised to run on the PS4K, meaning that those wishing to play it on the original PS4 will suffer noticeably lower performance.

 

The reason those saying it is just like a PC are talking rubbish, is because those who play on PCs know that if you have older hardware you cab reduce the graphical fidelity of games in order to increase their performance. So two different systems can both output 60fps game play by altering the level of detail, effects and shading in the game.

 

Really, the PS4K is going to offer the chance to play games at an optimal level and at 60fps, whilst the PS4 will offer the less optimal experience. So Sony are asking gamers who want to experience all their games at the best possible frame rate to pony up another £300. That is why people are annoyed.

 

All those defending this move, if you are genuinely happy playing your games knowing they were optimised for your system and playing them at a lower frame rate, good for you, but you can hardly criticise those that feel ripped off for buying a system that they now need to upgrade in order to play games in the best and most fluid way.

 

While I 99.9% agree with you, this IS the best case scenario AND most likely outcome, BUT...who's to say Sony won't go evil? Versions that barely work on the normal console and only really work as intended on the new version. Aren't they sharing online structure, too? Anyone who plays online pro-like will have ZERO choice whether they upgrade or not due to unfair performance issues/balancing. And "other" stuff. Things "could" get VERY dodgy.

 

"Function" you say, Serebii. Function (as in work to some degree) and function optimally is a vast range. I can function on hour an hour's sleep in a two day period. Just not function very well, but I am functional.

Edited May 28, 2016 by Mr_Master_X2

[Sheikah]

This discussion has been carried out in a way that literally paints the PS4K as providing games that just look a little better, which is completely disingenuous.

 

So your argument is that games would be created to run perfectly on Neo and thus may not even function acceptably on the base model, which they were not optimised for. That the base model would suffer as a result of the new model.

 

The scenario you describe has to be the most foolhardy way to develop a game. For one, the original PS4 has sold through 40 million systems; by the time the Neo launches that could well be 50-60 million. So to not develop games with those people in mind; to leave the base version of games in a worse state than what those gamers are used to seems silly.

 

Second, to develop a game on the powerful system and then worrying about the lesser system performance after is only going to lead to trouble. It makes more sense to develop your game to function well on the lesser system since if you do it the other way around, maybe the lesser system can't even handle the game you made (e.g. number of NPCs on screen) meaning you have just wasted your time.

 

If you look at the Neo reports they clearly indicate there can be no gameplay differences. Thus, it really will be a resolution/FPS upping on the Neo. Let's wait and see before complaining that this will make things worse for us original owners because nothing so far convinces me of your argument.

 

Really, the PS4K is going to offer the chance to play games at an optimal level and at 60fps, whilst the PS4 will offer the less optimal experience. So Sony are asking gamers who want to experience all their games at the best possible frame rate to pony up another £300. That is why people are annoyed.

 

Can you explain why people are annoyed by this? This is no different to upgrading your PC graphics card to achieve the same thing (to achieve a higher level of performance). Yes, you can achieve 60 FPS on PC by lowering other sliders, but that means lowering other sliders. This way you can have both the resolution/graphics and FPS bump.

 

When people bought their PS4 they knew the level of performance they were buying into. This gives people that want to upgrade the option. If you don't want to upgrade then you can carry on playing games at the graphical level you are used to.

Edited May 28, 2016 by Sheikah

[Goron_3]

This discussion has been carried out in a way that literally paints the PS4K as providing games that just look a little better, which is completely disingenuous.

 

If a PS4 ran at 1080 and 60fps and the PS4K ran at 4K and 60fps, the issue would simply be an upgraded console that provided games that looked a little better.

 

However the big issue with the PS4 has been games that run with frame rates that dip below 30fps. So the issue will be that games may well be optimised to run on the PS4K, meaning that those wishing to play it on the original PS4 will suffer noticeably lower performance.

 

The reason those saying it is just like a PC are talking rubbish, is because those who play on PCs know that if you have older hardware you cab reduce the graphical fidelity of games in order to increase their performance. So two different systems can both output 60fps game play by altering the level of detail, effects and shading in the game.

 

Really, the PS4K is going to offer the chance to play games at an optimal level and at 60fps, whilst the PS4 will offer the less optimal experience. So Sony are asking gamers who want to experience all their games at the best possible frame rate to pony up another £300. That is why people are annoyed.

 

All those defending this move, if you are genuinely happy playing your games knowing they were optimised for your system and playing them at a lower frame rate, good for you, but you can hardly criticise those that feel ripped off for buying a system that they now need to upgrade in order to play games in the best and most fluid way.

 

A developer would have to be moronic to prioritise a PS4K version of a game ahead of the PS4 and XBO versions because the install base for the latter is absolutely gigantic. That's they type of decision that leads to games flopping and in some cases developers shutting down altogether.

[Serebii]

A developer would have to be moronic to prioritise a PS4K version of a game ahead of the PS4 and XBO versions because the install base for the latter is absolutely gigantic. That's they type of decision that leads to games flopping and in some cases developers shutting down altogether.

Stranger things have happened

[liger05]

I'm having a hard time believing developers will not be looking to use the capabilities of neo and Scorpio all so games can run to the decent standard on xb1 and PS4.

 

These boxes still need to sell and to sell them means making consumers want to upgrade to the new and better box. Graphic fidelity has always been the first thing people look at when it comes to new consoles so a slightly looking better version isn't going to cut it.

 

 

Scorpio sounds like a full generation leap so I'm not expecting first party titles at least to be taking the xb1 into account too much.

 

Would love to know how all these rumours are going down at Nintendo HQ. E3 could potentially see two new consoles announced before the NX is officially revealed. That wasn't expected.

Edited May 28, 2016 by liger05

[Serebii]

Yeah that's the weird thing. Scorpio seems like more of a generational leap than Xbox 360 to Xbox One was

[Ashley]

Yesterday there was talk about how Neo/Scorpio are coming out 2 and a half years after the PS4/One (even though we don't know when they're coming out yet, but we'll skirt over that eh?). The NX was announced 2 and a half years after the Wii U came out (March 2015) and while it will obviously be longer until its released, I still thought it was interesting to try and understand why Nintendo may have announced this so early into a console's life. Because that seems to be some concern - that Sony/Microsoft are jumping ship from their consoles early in their life with little regard for the consumers who have purchased it (even though the games will continue to be supported and the NX is a new console outright, although it too might support Wii U titles).

 

I chose to look at North America because Japan gets a number of exclusives and we get left behind with some, so they seemed like a middle ground.

 

Both graphs separate physical and eShop exclusive titles, but the first stacks them to also give the total releases.

 

 

The first thing that struck me was the months without physical releases. The following months didn't have any physical games released:

 

01/2013

02/2013

12/2013

07/2014

08/2014

01/2015

04/2015

02/2016

 

That's 8 out of 43 months (19%) without any physical releases.

 

If we look at months with less than 4 releases (a rough 'one a week' measurement):

 

01/2013

02/2013

04/2013

06/2013

07/2013

12/2013

01/2014

02/2014

03/2014

04/2014

05/2014

06/2014

07/2014

08/2014

09/2014

12/2014

01/2015

02/2015

03/2015

04/2015

05/2015

06/2015

07/2015

08/2015

09/2015

01/2016

02/2016

03/2016

04/2016

05/2016

 

That's 30 out of 43 (70%).

 

Notice something else? In the whole of 2014 there was only two months where 4 or more physical titles were released; October and November. Perhaps its no surprise that Nintendo announced the NX in March 2015 (by that point in 2015 there had also not been any months with more than 4 physical games).

 

Now I'm not trying to underplay the eShop. I enjoy digital shop fronts personally and hope they continue to grow. One only needs to look at the fact Sony earned more from PSN in the last fiscal year than Nintendo did from everything to see their importance and I really hope Nintendo continue to grow and unify theirs. However, digital exclusive games don't get the attention in shops; they don't get the shelf space and they don't draw in possible customers.

 

On average there has been 3.39 (i.e. 3) physical releases each month on the Wii U, and that includes the impressive 29 released at launch (its 2.78 without the launch). It is no wonder the Wii U has long been relegated in shops. If we look at all titles (including eShop exclusives) it's a bit better with 11.2 titles on average each month.