PS4 Pro Speculation (PS4K NEO Kaio-Ken-Kutaragi-Kaz Neo-san)

[Grall]

This implies that PS5 and PS5.5 games need to work on PS4, which could end up being something like 4-6 times less powerful.

I wouldn't worry about that. With intelligent middleware and SDKs and whatnot, features could be switched off for less advanced hardware, or replaced with less demanding implementations. Having a PC-like ecosystem could be a big boon, if implemented correctly. Let's see the possibilities and advantages here, rather than only the potential but not certain drawbacks...

 

[Prophecy2k]

I wouldn't worry about that. With intelligent middleware and SDKs and whatnot, features could be switched off for less advanced hardware, or replaced with less demanding implementations. Having a PC-like ecosystem could be a big boon, if implemented correctly. Let's see the possibilities and advantages here, rather than only the potential but not certain drawbacks...

How intelligent can middleware SDKs possibly be? If your vision for your new game requires it to be designed around a certain set of complex CPU-intensive mechanics, then disabling those mechanics on legacy systems would be game-breaking to the point that why even bother? I can't see many devs doing that. rather they'll just bastardise their original vision so that the eventual game will run on all legacy systems with the larger installed base.

 

[iroboto]

How intelligent can middleware SDKs possibly be? If your vision for your new game requires it to be designed around a certain set of complex CPU-intensive mechanics, then disabling those mechanics on legacy systems would be game-breaking to the point that why even bother? I can't see many devs doing that. rather they'll just bastardise their original vision so that the eventual game will run on all legacy systems with the larger installed base.

It's not that bad. You aim for the legacy system and you add features to go from there. Unless we are talking about completely different graphic architectures or features the game should scale well.

 

[rokkerkory]

I am kinda excited we are getting more iterations per gen. Let's hope there is 100% BC and improvement for existing PS4 games while enough hp to give 4.5 games a good difference. If it's only for 4k media and VR then meh.

 

[Prophecy2k]

It's not that bad. You aim for the legacy system and you add features to go from there. Unless we are talking about completely different graphic architectures or features the game should scale well.

But then the games don't progress... That's terribad!

Isn't the whole point of new HW to enable gameplay mechanics and designs that weren't possible on previous HW. If iterative HW with incremental upgrades is the future of the platform side, then incremental upgrades to existing games will be what people see on the software side. I'm pretty sure gamers won't be too fond of that as an approach.

 

[goonergaz]

But then the games don't progress... That's terribad!

Isn't the whole point of new HW to enable gameplay mechanics and designs that weren't possible on previous HW. If iterative HW with incremental upgrades is the future of the platform side, then incremental upgrades to existing games will be what people see on the software side. I'm pretty sure gamers won't be too fond of that as an approach.

Are most games still being released on PS3/X360? Those games are aimed at last gen but run better on new gen except in my example devs won't need to write 2 completely different games for 2 completely different machines. They could aim for near the top and scale back, so let's say we f/f and PS5.5 is now out. They could aim for PS4.5 or PS5 and then scale back features for PS4 but add features for PS5.5.

Please bear in mind I have no (technical) idea what I'm talking about...it just seems possible, especially if consoles are all BC due to the hardware and setups being so similar...it'll be similar to how games are written for PCS but much easier for devs (again, in my non-technical opinion)

 

[mrcorbo]

This would be awful...

This implies that PS5 and PS5.5 games need to work on PS4, which could end up being something like 4-6 times less powerful. So games will be held back by sh!tty Jaguar CPU cores for the next 6 years... bleeergh!!!!

It's the very definition of having new HW merely for the sake of new HW, as no games that want to have a hope of commercial success will actually be able to take any advantage of that new HW. It's a PC with none of the benefits

How is that worse than the current model where games are restricted to running on the original launch specs for 5-6 years with *no* ability to take advantage of advances in tech? And how is it different than the last two console generations which have seen previous-gen ports and remasters throughout the generation with games that were designed from the ground up to take advantage of the new tech few and far between until the install base of consoles with that tech warranted the investment?

Change that first sentence to, "This implies that PS3 games will have to continue to run on PS3 despite the fact that there is hardware out there that is 4-6 times more powerful, so games will be held back by Cell's shitty PPC cores for the next 6 years... bleeergh!!!!". Now explain to me why this is worse?

 

[function]

Gameplay is less and less limited by hardware power. The exception is large scale sandbox where you can go nuts with simulation. Even then, core gameplay will often scale fairly well too.

But linear fps? 1 v 1 fighter? Racing games? Puzzle? Action? Mostly power is about eye candy now, and it's memory that allows worlds to scale.

The rush to move beyond 8 x Jaguar in 2017 won't be so desperate for the majority of games out there.

Edit: Rise of the Tomb Raider and Forza Horizon 2 were made without consideration for the 360 downports. The 360 version still ended up being pretty damn good by the looks of things ...

 

[Prophecy2k]

Are most games still being released on PS3/X360?

Err, no. The last cross-gen game I can remember was Tomb Raider and that was only due to it being an Xbox exclusive thus needing to release on more than just XB1 at launch in order to be successful. Very few if any current gen third party games release on PS3/XB360 anymore, and for good reason too; as the RAM difference alone (i.e. 256 MB vs. 8GB) means that any game would be severely gimped if it still had to release on the previous gen.

Those games are aimed at last gen but run better on new gen except in my example devs won't need to write 2 completely different games for 2 completely different machines. They could aim for near the top and scale back, so let's say we f/f and PS5.5 is now out. They could aim for PS4.5 or PS5 and then scale back features for PS4 but add features for PS5.5.

Please bear in mind I have no (technical) idea what I'm talking about...it just seems possible, especially if consoles are all BC due to the hardware and setups being so similar...it'll be similar to how games are written for PCS but much easier for devs (again, in my non-technical opinion)

I spoke to this point earlier. It's not as easy or as simple as just "disabling features" for old gen legacy consoles when the gulf in performance between the latest gen boxes and the oldest legacy systems supported is significant. What if the thing that doesn't run on the legacy consoles is the core mechanics of the game, due to them being far too CPU, RAM or mem. bandwidth intensive? Just cutting out your core mechanics essentially changes the game entirely? It also will cost significant dev time as you'll suddenly be developing effectively two very different games, each designed around their workable mechanics, whilst having to optimise each generational SKU independently.

By the end gamers with the old consoles will feel cheated for paying the same $60 for a bastardized experience, Devs would have spent near twice the amount on dev time making the game, and so pubs will be looking to recoup the increased dev costs by being even more conservative and risk averse than they are now. It doesn't sound at all beneficial to any party except maybe AMD and Foxcon.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Err, no. The last cross-gen game I can remember was Tomb Raider and that was only due to it being an Xbox exclusive thus needing to release on more than just XB1 at launch in order to be successful. Very few if any current gen third party games release on PS3/XB360 anymore, and for good reason too; as the RAM difference alone (i.e. 256 MB vs. 8GB).

Slight correction to your 32x difference! 512 MBs RAM, some reserved. So let's say 400+ on PS3. 5GBs available on current systems. So more like 12x. Not that that changes your point.

 

[Prophecy2k]

How is that worse than the current model where games are restricted to running on the original launch specs for 5-6 years with *no* ability to take advantage of advances in tech?

Eh? It's nothing like the current model. Sure games designed for the most current gen console aren't able to take advantage of newer tech, but that's irrelevant as the many existing console owners don't own newer tech, then own a PS4 so games are written for that HW. The important part is games being released now don't have to target shitty old HW with a measly 512MB of RAM.

And how is it different than the last two console generations which have seen previous-gen ports and remasters throughout the generation with games that were designed from the ground up to take advantage of the new tech few and far between until the install base of consoles with that tech warranted the investment?

That's quite the contrivance there... pretty much no game released now targets PS3 and XB360. Neither have they since the first 18months of this had elapsed and the installed bases had grown sufficiently large enough to support "from the ground up" current gen games.

There's a huge difference between 18 months and a 4-6 year wait to see game stop being held back by legacy hardware because the oldest gen boxes start losing support.

Incremental iterative generations extend the amount of time that old worn out HW needs to be supported. I cannot see how that can be argued as anything but a major negative.

Change that first sentence to, "This implies that PS3 games will have to continue to run on PS3 despite the fact that there is hardware out there that is 4-6 times more powerful, so games will be held back by Cell's shitty PPC cores for the next 6 years... bleeergh!!!!". Now explain to me why this is worse?

This doesn't make any sense to me besides stating the obvious and avoiding what the real issues with iterative incremental HW are.

 

[function]

Incremental iterative generations extend the amount of time that old worn out HW needs to be supported.

There's absolutely no reason why this has to be the case.

 

[Prophecy2k]

There's absolutely no reason why this has to be the case.

Of course there is!!!

With more frequent HW updates there's physically less time available for newer HW to garner enough of an installed base. Thus pubs will require games to target older HW for much longer.

In the best years of any generation of HW, consoles will generally sell anywhere between 10-15 million. In the first years however you're looking at sales of between 6-10 million consoles. That's with a traditional generation. Incremental iterative upgrades means both less time for building your installed base and less of an incentive for gamers to upgrade, so those annual sales figures will contract severely.

Putting new HW out more frequently whilst ensuring both forward and backwards compatibility will mean you sell less new hw during their launch years, not more.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

E.g. a game whose design is based around realistic and interactive fluid simulation...

 

[milk]

There was wetrix for none-other than the n64

Sent from my LG-D385 using Tapatalk

 

[goonergaz]

Err, no. The last cross-gen game I can remember was Tomb Raider and that was only due to it being an Xbox exclusive thus needing to release on more than just XB1 at launch in order to be successful. Very few if any current gen third party games release on PS3/XB360 anymore, and for good reason too; as the RAM difference alone (i.e. 256 MB vs. 8GB) means that any game would be severely gimped if it still had to release on the previous gen..

Yes, tail end of last year there was a few (CoD, WRC a couple others) - so 9 years after PS3 launched devs were still supporting it. My model suggests exactly the same support but in theory it'll be easier for devs because the consoles will share the same arcitecture.

 

[Grall]

Putting new HW out more frequently whilst ensuring both forward and backwards compatibility will mean you sell less new hw during their launch years, not more.

That's of course just speculation.

 

[wco81]

You know you don't have to buy it if this comes to pass.

Just like many if not most people don't buy a phone every year, instead buy every other year or every two years, to get a bigger jump.

 

[Prophecy2k]

That's of course just speculation.

All we can do at this point

 

[function]

Of course there is!!!

No, really, there's not! It could work out either way depending on the economics.

With more frequent HW updates there's physically less time available for newer HW to garner enough of an installed base. Thus pubs will require games to target older HW for much longer.

In the best years of any generation of HW, consoles will generally sell anywhere between 10-15 million. In the first years however you're looking at sales of between 6-10 million consoles. That's with a traditional generation. Incremental iterative upgrades means both less time for building your installed base and less of an incentive for gamers to upgrade, so those annual sales figures will contract severely.

Putting new HW out more frequently whilst ensuring both forward and backwards compatibility will mean you sell less new hw during their launch years, not more.

You're judging how "old and crusty" hardware is based on whether there's new hardware out. That doesn't actually tell you anything about the limits of the hardware available, or say anything about what you as a game developer can acheive.

If instead you judge how "old and crusty" hardware is by its age (e.g. years) and by features and performance, then moving to more frequent, but less sizeable advances in hardware may either force a lower baseline or allow for a higher one depending upon a number of factors.

If the 360 had been "upgraded" every, say, three years then it is very, very likely that some games would have begun to target a higher baseline [than the launch 360 from 2005] before the 2014 or 2015 that most games actually did. The critical mass for support of a rasied baseline would likely have been reached earlier.

It's possible (likely?) that making PS360 the only console option for so many years meant that a crusty and old baseline was kept for far longer than needed - for at least some games.

If you look at PC land - where consoles go GPU and CPU shopping - frequent, incremental upgrades allowed some exclusive games (economics permitting) to move beyond the console baseline before PS4Bone was release.

As I say, it could work out either way, and be different at different points in the cycle, for diffcrent games with different economic realities. On PC every game is free to pick its baseline based on economic considerations.