liger05 Posted May 28, 2016 Posted May 28, 2016 (edited) 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 Posted May 28, 2016 Posted May 28, 2016 Yeah that's the weird thing. Scorpio seems like more of a generational leap than Xbox 360 to Xbox One was
Ashley Posted May 28, 2016 Posted May 28, 2016 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.
Serebii Posted May 28, 2016 Posted May 28, 2016 To be fair, we know the exact reason Nintendo announced it when they did. They were announcing their smartphone venture. They had to announce it to reassure that they weren't giving up on hardware. That's why it was announced so early. Nothing to do with low software amounts. They said as much.
S.C.G Posted May 28, 2016 Posted May 28, 2016 While I agree to a point, it's still interesting to see the releases in data form. I feel that Nintendo have a lot of untapped potential still, especially on the eShop front, if they can make it so that all digital purchases from your NNID & My Nintendo account are instantly downloadable on future platforms and streamline their eShop to make it quicker, easier, more appealing to download games in addition to having more of those titles we want to buy up there then I can see them being just as successful as Sony's Playstation Store given time. That kind of success didn't happen overnight with Sony though and it won't happen that way for Nintendo either, as I said though... still huge potential and we don't know enough about the future yet but these are exciting times, that's for certain.
Ashley Posted May 28, 2016 Posted May 28, 2016 To be fair, we know the exact reason Nintendo announced it when they did. They were announcing their smartphone venture. They had to announce it to reassure that they weren't giving up on hardware. That's why it was announced so early. Nothing to do with low software amounts. They said as much. Well where were you yesterday? Even so, the numbers are quite interesting.
Serebii Posted May 28, 2016 Posted May 28, 2016 Well where were you yesterday? Even so, the numbers are quite interesting. I try to stay out of posting in this thread :p
Zechs Merquise Posted May 30, 2016 Posted May 30, 2016 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. Well, it seems silly, but that is what appears to be happening. The fact is, there are already games which have performance issues on the PS4, these games suffer drops in frame rates and aren't running as well as developers want them to. The PS4K will ensure those games run at a stable 60fps, or closer to 60fps. So essentially, the PS4 will be the 'poor man's option'. This problem will be exacerbated as the generation moves forward and developers push the system harder and harder, we saw at the end of the last generation games pushed the PS3 and 360 more as they became more ambitious in their scope, design and graphical quality, that often led to a reduction in frame rate and performance. The PS4K will mean that those more advanced titles will run optimally on the PS4K, but suffer more issues and performance problems on the lesser console. 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. As already stated, developers are already releasing games that are having frame rate issues or aren't meeting the 60fps 1080p gold standard which developers would like to achieve. Obviously the games will still function on the lesser system, but they won't play as smoothly. Whilst the reports state that there won't be gameplay differences, which essentially means there won't be extra modes or content for PS4K players, I know that if presented with a choice of playing the next Battlefield or GTA game at 60fps or around 30fps, the vast majority would choose the higher frame rate. Essentially, this creates a top tier system where games perform better, and a lesser tier where games perform worse. I know that as a gamer, if Nintendo offered me a system where their titles ran more smoothly and had a better performance, I would opt for that system over a lesser one where games ran less well. It's a no brainer really, any serious gamer will want to play their games at the best quality. 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. I always find it amusing when people ask a question, yet answer that question themselves! Why would people who bought a games console, and not a PC, be annoyed when the games console they bought was treated like a PC and not a games console? The answer is, they bought a games console. We are now in the 8th generation of consoles and when people buy a console they are used to it lasting 5 or 6 years. People buy consoles and choose to game that way because they don't want the hassle of PC gaming, they want to buy a box, sit it under the TV, plug the controller in, put in a game and play that game. Despite technology moving forward and despite patches and installs, games consoles still function very much the same as they always have. The average gamer still buys disk based games and still enjoys the relative simplicity of gaming with a console. If you can't see why a consumer would be annoyed that they paid £300 for a games console, only to find that 2 or 3 years later the same company released at an upgraded model that new games would play better on, then you are either blind or purposefully ignoring facts. When people buy a console they except a longer lifespan and they don't expect to be told that half way through a generation they will need to buy a new version of that console if they want to play future games in the est quality possible. I'm not sure why that is hard to understand. 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. Well Sony want to sell PS4Ks, so the PS4K will have to have some unique selling points, and simply outputting games at 4K would be pretty weak as 4K TVs and 4K output isn't really common place enough to cause the average joe to buy a new console - or even choose the 4K over the stand PS4. Games will obviously continue to run on the PS4, but it looks like from the leaked specs that they will run better on the PS4K, which will proved the PS4K its biggest selling point - higher and more stable frame rates on the PS4K. I've never said games won't run at all on the PS4, but we have already seen so many arguments and issues over performance on current gen consoles - these performance issues would theoretically be put to bed if the consoles were more powerful, hence Sony are releasing a more powerful console. But that leads the gamer who has already got a PS4 to have to upgrade if they want to enjoy future games with a better level of performance.
Sheikah Posted May 30, 2016 Posted May 30, 2016 (edited) Well, it seems silly, but that is what appears to be happening. The fact is, there are already games which have performance issues on the PS4, these games suffer drops in frame rates and aren't running as well as developers want them to. The Neo is not even out or announced so to say 'that's what appears to be happening' is not really true, is it? What you're saying doesn't suggest that things will get worse for base model owners. You have mentioned 'FPS not being hit on the base model already' as a means to justify your point. Well here's the thing - that was already happening, as the system isn't powerful enough to output pure 1080p60fps on every game. That's not going to change any time soon, unless the graphical complexity of games is stripped back to accommodate it. Really though, I want proof, or at least a very strong suggestion, that developers would be mad enough to shaft 50+ million owners by making games run even worse than they are doing already on the base system. I want proof that developers are going to commit suicide by doing this and ruining their name. Games running sub 1080p60 will not prove that as games are already doing that and have been since launch. Until then...I don't buy your theories. I believe that the people with base PS4s will carry on getting the same experience, which means that if you choose to stick with the base model, you're probably not going to be worse off than you were when you bought it. The whole getting annoyed at the Neo thing just seems so counter-progressive and bitter. What is the alternative; stick with old tech for 8 years just so you feel better about your purchase? As long as nobody is getting a better deal than you then that's all good? Consoles receive hardware revisions all the time and quite often they are meaningless but still full price. A smaller form factor PS2; a console you hardly look at anyway since it lives under your TV. Yet here, Sony seem to be giving you something really cool for your money in a revised piece of hardware and people complain. It's pretty damn laughable really. Of course, they could have made the PS4 more powerful to begin to have a better performing machine but then that £350 would likely be £425...just like the PS3. And we all know how well that went down! Edited May 30, 2016 by Sheikah
Ashley Posted May 30, 2016 Posted May 30, 2016 Admin note: last few pages (from this post onwards) has been moved from the NX thread.
dazzybee Posted May 31, 2016 Posted May 31, 2016 Really though, I want proof, or at least a very strong suggestion, that developers would be mad enough to shaft 50+ million owners by making games run even worse than they are doing already on the base system. I want proof that developers are going to commit suicide by doing this and ruining their name. Games running sub 1080p60 will not prove that as games are already doing that and have been since launch. Isn't that what happens with the release of every new console? They moved from 80 million PS3 owners to make ps4 games? Developers want to work with the best kit, why have all that power and not use it to its maximum potential? I hope it doesn't happen, I'm pretty sure it won't happen, but it really wouldn't surprise me if it did.
Ashley Posted May 31, 2016 Posted May 31, 2016 In fairness PS3 support continued for about a year (even if it was just multi platform titles) and the console itself had been out for 7. We'll just have to see really!
Sheikah Posted May 31, 2016 Posted May 31, 2016 Isn't that what happens with the release of every new console? They moved from 80 million PS3 owners to make ps4 games? Developers want to work with the best kit, why have all that power and not use it to its maximum potential? I hope it doesn't happen, I'm pretty sure it won't happen, but it really wouldn't surprise me if it did. Developers stopped supporting PS3 years after it launched when it was clear that PS3 games were charting nowhere near the top of the list relative to PS4, which had games charting at the top (people had by and large moved on from this long generation). That 80 million install base counts for absolutely nothing past a certain point - case in point, Wii games stopped charting long ago despite having the biggest install base of them all. With the silly levels of PS4 sales still happening and PS4 games charting #1 consistently, it would be mad for developers to shaft the people with this system. What with the forced gameplay parity between Neo/base games, and the short time since the base launch, I can't see enough people moving on to justify developers dropping support. Plus, they kinda have to support it.
dazzybee Posted June 1, 2016 Posted June 1, 2016 Developers stopped supporting PS3 years after it launched when it was clear that PS3 games were charting nowhere near the top of the list relative to PS4, which had games charting at the top (people had by and large moved on from this long generation). That 80 million install base counts for absolutely nothing past a certain point - case in point, Wii games stopped charting long ago despite having the biggest install base of them all. With the silly levels of PS4 sales still happening and PS4 games charting #1 consistently, it would be mad for developers to shaft the people with this system. What with the forced gameplay parity between Neo/base games, and the short time since the base launch, I can't see enough people moving on to justify developers dropping support. Plus, they kinda have to support it. But if people seem to be saying that console gens as we know it maybe changing, then maybe this will change too. I really don't think it's a big jump to think developers will want to harness the power of the more powerful consoles. Rather than 5, 6 years, maybe gen could be more like 3 with these revision jumps. Maybe not wholesale, but quite a lot of games could do it. It's not that hard to believe. Like I say, I hope not, and don't think it will, but it definitely COULD and I think people's concerns are valid.
Choze Posted June 1, 2016 Posted June 1, 2016 Going by the rumours the Neo will only have profiles for ps4 games. Essentially minor enhancements. The main difference will be resolution beyond 1080p. There will be no native ps4 Neo game. I think that is quite different from a new console. The main issue I have is that by the time it's out isn't it abit late? We'll be talking about PS5 shortly after... 2017 is 4 years in the gen... The new Blu Ray format won't be included which will be a blow for 4K enthusiasts. But if people seem to be saying that console gens as we know it maybe changing, then maybe this will change too. I really don't think it's a big jump to think developers will want to harness the power of the more powerful consoles. Rather than 5, 6 years, maybe gen could be more like 3 with these revision jumps. Maybe not wholesale, but quite a lot of games could do it. It's not that hard to believe. Like I say, I hope not, and don't think it will, but it definitely COULD and I think people's concerns are valid. I don't think so. People are citing mobile phones where contracts have gotten longer not shorter. Nowadays less are upgrading devices all round. The Neo won't do much if the ps4 will stay around. A slim would do well imo. Plus the target age demographic are poorer.
Jimbob Posted June 1, 2016 Posted June 1, 2016 Phew, this thread is a good read. From what i believe, i'm thinking Neo is just like the New3DS is to the current 3DS, will play the same games and just look a little better. Probably be capable of doing VR without the need of that extra power box that'll be supplied for the PS4. I'm not worried at all, as long as i can still play the latest games on my current PS4 i'll be happy.
Sheikah Posted June 1, 2016 Posted June 1, 2016 (edited) But if people seem to be saying that console gens as we know it maybe changing, then maybe this will change too. I really don't think it's a big jump to think developers will want to harness the power of the more powerful consoles. Rather than 5, 6 years, maybe gen could be more like 3 with these revision jumps. Maybe not wholesale, but quite a lot of games could do it. It's not that hard to believe. Like I say, I hope not, and don't think it will, but it definitely COULD and I think people's concerns are valid. But Sony have reportedly decreed that no game can be developed as Neo only, and that gameplay must be identical. Given the demand for parity I don't see what these concerns are exactly. As I said, a developer would be tarnishing their own name if they chose to dial back their base version support and only test/optimise their games on Neo. That's why I don't see the Neo's existence hurting the base model. If anything I think it will make the PS4 generation last longer as I think a refreshed model will stave off people's desire for PS5 for longer. Edited June 1, 2016 by Sheikah
dwarf Posted June 2, 2016 Posted June 2, 2016 Sony are always testing the water with these sorts of features; Move, 3D, PSVR, PlayStationNow, and now 4K. How do you safely gauge demand for the above if you don't actually release them in some form? Sony have taken up the strategy of releasing them as optional extras that have no impact on the core player base. This allows them to optimise or scrap the feature for their next console launch with minimal risk. I don't think the Neo indicates a shortening in the console life-cycle. More likely it reflects what we've been seeing already - hardware evolving during each life-cycle.
Cookyman Posted June 2, 2016 Posted June 2, 2016 I don't think the Neo indicates a shortening in the console life-cycle. More likely it reflects what we've been seeing already - hardware evolving during each life-cycle. Agreed, hardware evolves - sadly some people don't
Dcubed Posted June 3, 2016 Posted June 3, 2016 The new Blu Ray format won't be included which will be a blow for 4K enthusiasts. I reaaaaaaalllllyyyy doubt that. Pushing adoption of their 4K TVs is the whole reason why Sony would want to do this in the first place. What other incentive do they have? They're already up and away the market leader.
Hero-of-Time Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 Sony finally confirms Neo is a thing. Andrew House, president and global chief executive of Sony Interactive Entertainment, told the Financial Times that the “high-end PS4” would be more expensive than the current $350 version. “It is intended to sit alongside and complement the standard PS4,” he said. “We will be selling both [versions] through the life cycle.” The new console, which is codenamed “Neo”, will target hardcore gamers, he said, as well as consumers with a 4K television set looking for more high-resolution content. However, in a move that may disappoint some fans, Mr House said that Sony would not be unveiling its new console next week and refused to say when or at what price the unit would go on sale. “We want to ensure we have a full range of the best experiences on the new system that we can showcase in their entirety,” he said. Nonetheless, he downplayed concerns that the move would cause interoperability problems between the old and new PS4 hardware. “All games will support the standard PS4 and we anticipate all or a very large majority of games will also support the high-end PS4,” he said.
drahkon Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 Great, now my PS4 is obsolete...oh, wait. Pretty happy that it won't be shown at E3. More room for games and VR
Jimbob Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 That's confirmation, and will stop the bickering. I'm happy that it's not going to have exclusive games (bar PS4 exclusives) and that all current (and future) PS4 games will work on it.
Sheikah Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 That's good - confirmation that the base model will not be phased out, and also that the Neo will not be coming for a while yet.
Daft Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 *eye twitch* Need shiny new things NOW. Maybe it'll launch alongside PSVR.
Recommended Posts