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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Scott_Arm said:
The Case for the PS4K

http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/DavidGalindo/20160422/271014/The_Case_for_the_PS4K.php
Click to expand...
I find that line of argument weak. If we accept the premise that first party exclusive content is irrelevant (??), and we have continuosly upgraded platforms, why would that encourage staying with the same manufacturer? The situation would be like TVs. Common content, and once consumers feels the urge, they go out and compare their options on the market. That's not a setup that encourages brand loyalty, someone who bought Sony may well go for Samsung or whatever the next time around.
The line of argument doesn't really make sense to me, and I'm not sure that the simplified underlying premises help either.
 
Gamers are loyal to brands or to content?

I thought I was loyal to Nintendo. Then I switched to Playstation. Then to pc. Then xbox360. Now Playstation again.

I follow the content.

My friend even jumped to pc completely due to lots of ps4 and Xbox one games also come to pc.

As long as games are coming out for original ps4, and it looks and plays even more awesome in ps4k.

I'll gladly move to ps4k if the difference is substantial enough and there is enough content.

Edit

Maybe they actually loyal to nothing and just decide logically?

Xbox one lost in this generation. Mostly because they have similar content with ps4. But they are too expensive right?
 
orangpelupa said:
Gamers are loyal to brands or to content?

I thought I was loyal to Nintendo. Then I switched to Playstation. Then to pc. Then xbox360. Now Playstation again.

I follow the content.

My friend even jumped to pc completely due to lots of ps4 and Xbox one games also come to pc.

As long as games are coming out for original ps4, and it looks and plays even more awesome in ps4k.

I'll gladly move to ps4k if the difference is substantial enough and there is enough content.

Edit

Maybe they actually loyal to nothing and just decide logically?

Xbox one lost in this generation. Mostly because they have similar content with ps4. But they are too expensive right?
Click to expand...
I don't know if all that large a group is loyal even to content. Video games hit the bargain bin really quickly compared to hardware evolution. It is a market that is dominated by consumers looking for new thrills, and whatever offers or promises new content at an approachable price will be appealing. You have to entice the consumers to bite, and then proceed to milk them in a not-too-obnoxious manner.
 
Entropy said:
I find that line of argument weak. If we accept the premise that first party exclusive content is irrelevant (??), and we have continuosly upgraded platforms, why would that encourage staying with the same manufacturer? The situation would be like TVs...
Click to expand...
TVs show the same library content; consoles don't. So once someone's spent $500 on software for your platform, when picking the next platform they'll prefer the one that already supports their $500 of software. Then by the time the next platform comes around, there's $1000 of software to take with you. It's indeed the only way to keep people 'loyal', by tying them in to an ecosystem. It's the main reason people are reticent to switch iOS<>Android or Win<>Mac - you lose all your software. And why there are measures to enable you to use your software via virtual machines.

Now if software becomes a service and you subscribe, like Netflix, then the hardware companies are doomed. ;)
 
Last edited:
Shifty Geezer said:
TVs show the same library content; consoles don't. So once someone's spent $500 on software for your platform, when picking the next platform they'll prefer the one that already supports their $500 of software. Then by the time the next platform comes around, there's $1000 of software to take with you. It's indeed the only way to keep people 'loyal', by tying them in to an exosystem. It's the main reason people are reticent to switch iOS<>Android or Win<>Mac - you lose all your software. And why there are measures to enable you to use your software via virtual machines.

Now if software becomes a service and you subscribe, like Netflix, then the hardware companies are doomed. ;)
Click to expand...
True, but that tie-in has always been there, and been exploited by backwards compatible consoles. As far as history shows us, backwards compatibility with software simply doesn't seem to be a particularly compelling selling point. Indeed, the most backwards incompatible console this generation is the undisputed leader. People just seem to keep their old console around for as long as they have an interest in playing their old catalog of games.
 
That's true, but that's because the difference between old gen and new gen is so signficant, and the old games aren't improved when played BC, that a clean break makes sense, in the same way we ditched VHS to migrate to DVD. But when the library you have plays (looks) better on the new console, and the new console is only 3 years away instead of 6 (if you want), it's a different dynamic. I've argued that BC isn't that important, and yet I've also stated that if PS4 played my old library improved, I'd be more inclined to get one, because there are old games I'd like to revists but not in crappy SD quality and juddery framerates. ;)

So, you have a library of XStation games bought on your XStation 3, worth $500. The XStation 3.5 comes out alongside a PlayBox 3.5. The PlayBox 3.5 is twice as powerful, resulting in a barely noticeable increase in resolution. Do you swap to the PlayBox and lose all your games, or get the XStation 3.5 and have the option to play your existing library in better quality? Then along comes XS4 and PB4. Again, do you really want to switch platform and lose your entire library? Given the consoles are now commodity hardware, and competition sees them provide basically the same services and experiences, there's very little to differentiate. Library and FC is the only hook to keep people 'loyal'; that and exclusives.
 
orangpelupa said:
Maybe they actually loyal to nothing and just decide logically?

Xbox one lost in this generation. Mostly because they have similar content with ps4. But they are too expensive right?
Click to expand...
It was pricey, came with Kinect which no-one wanted, and wasn't as powerful as the rival. Now imagine MS had released a console that was priced the same as PS4 without Kinect and, even if less powerful, played all the 360 games with improved graphics and the promise that all future console would play the same library. What do you think the ship-jumping rate would have been then? It certainly would have been less because the 360 fans would have had plenty more reason to stay with MS. The reason for ship jumping was the status quo wasn't strong enough to keep hold. That is, loyalty is probably worth 20% of the buying decision. You need to lose out on power/value/library to push current users to defect. And loyalty is logically - it means less issue with transferring to a new platform in this case. All your friends, account details, interface paradigms (after years of PS buttons, adapting to ABXY is always awkward for me), etc. stay the same. Like the transition from Android to iOS - I can't operate a mobile device without a 'back' button!
 
So the fact that Nintendo is saying March 2017 for NX all but confirms PS4.5 for a fall launch right? AMD said they had a new SoC launching this fall and it won't be Nintendo by the sounds of it...
 
mpg1 said:
So the fact that Nintendo is saying March 2017 for NX all but confirms PS4.5 for a fall launch right? AMD said they had a new SoC launching this fall and it won't be Nintendo by the sounds of it...
Click to expand...

Could be meaning Xbox One Slim that is indeed launching this year.
 
mpg1 said:
I think the way the AMD worded it was that they had three new SoC designs coming and they weren't simply cost reduction designs...
Click to expand...
But only $1.5 billion for all 3 of them (3-4 years span) when the Xbox One represented a $3 billion deal?

Something's awry.:confused: :unsure:
 
Last edited:
AlNets said:
But only $1.5 billion for all 3 of them (3-4 years span) when the Xbox One represented a $3 billion deal?

Something's awry.:confused: :unsure:
Click to expand...

Maybe that $3 Billion was calculated from MS selling few hundred million consoles. You know with the total market being one Billion consoles :)
 
They can only refuse to allow stuff. They can't ensure third parties create stuff, nor maintain a desired level of quality. Anyone buying XB or PS in the opening months did so on promise with no guarantees. And indeed, many a consumer has bought a console (or other platform, like Betamax) on faith only for that platform to die. Even someone like Nintendo who are certain to provide quality titles for a console because they are the chief content provide for their own hardware platform have failed to deliver on the promise sometimes (Wii U).
 
upnorthsox said:
Oh yeah, if years on this site has taught me one thing, it's that gamers are always rational and logical.....
Click to expand...
Sites on the internet will attract the super enthusiastic. But I'd say, from the immense game sales swing we saw from PS2 to 360 to PS4, that the majority don't care much for either Microsoft or Sony. I don't. Fanboys are the very vocal minority.
 
Shifty Geezer said:
They can only refuse to allow stuff. They can't ensure third parties create stuff, nor maintain a desired level of quality. ....
Click to expand...

Sony can mandate certain level of quality and they already do it on PSVR (not bellow 60 fps rule), so why not mandate at least something on PS4K, of course they don't want to piss off developers ...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

O
New Ken Kutaragi interview (1) @ PC Watch
13 14 15
Replies
296
Views
37K
Pozer
P
H
IBM backstabbing sony and neglected Apple ? (long read)
5 6 7
Replies
126
Views
47K
Fox5
F
Back
Top