The Console Arms Race: Is This What Console Gamers Want?
- Thread starter Shortbread
- Start date
I support a mid-generation upgrade because I always thought that this gen's consoles got caught up in some unfortunate timing due to the industry-wide problems with process technology. Could AMD put together a SoC using Zen + Vega + HBM2 that fits in a console thermal/power budget and manufacture it @ console volume? If so, that'd be a hell of an upgrade.
Billy Idol
Legend
Imo, if we get multiple console versions with different specs, this will be bad. Then devs cannot focus on a machine alone, thus optimization will be less effective and a lot of actual potential is lost.
Exactly the same is happening with PC imo.
So, no, as a console gamer, I am not interested!
Exactly the same is happening with PC imo.
So, no, as a console gamer, I am not interested!
The 2 systems for Sony and 2 systems for MS is easily supportable compared to the millions of various combinations of PC systems. Developers already supported this when they did ps3/x360/ps4/xo/wiiu. At least this way the 2 Sony and 2 MS systems are virtually identical in comparison.
It won't be the same as the PC, where you can have dozens of video cards, different motherboards, different CPUs, etc.
The matrix of possible configurations are much greater, whereas you're talking about maybe 3 different variations of a console within a generation.
Or, if they can deliver a big enough of a jump, they can just call it next gen with full backwards compatibility, including possibly playing back PS4 games with better performance than on PS4 hardware.
Some developers may decline to patch or optimize for more powerful configurations. That should be their choice.
The matrix of possible configurations are much greater, whereas you're talking about maybe 3 different variations of a console within a generation.
Or, if they can deliver a big enough of a jump, they can just call it next gen with full backwards compatibility, including possibly playing back PS4 games with better performance than on PS4 hardware.
Some developers may decline to patch or optimize for more powerful configurations. That should be their choice.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Two specifications is more work than one target specification but nowhere near as varied as PC where there is a crazy amount of variation: fundamental GPU architectures (AMD/Nvidia), different versions of that architecture, different VRAM sizes, type and speed, different main RAM capacities, different CPU architectures, different core and clock configurations, different bus speeds, different versions of Windows and DirectX, different drivers. It's crazy varied in PC land.
And on the plus side, a more gradual progression of console hardware every 3-4 years is an easier adjustment that sudden lurches every 5-8 years. When the Gen 3 PS4 comes out, you retire Gen 1 support in much the same way would happen when a new console launches anyway.
But it'd only be a good move if you can be sure of natural hardware progression over the long haul. You wouldn't want to be jumping from AMD to Nvidia and back. Not on PS4 anyway, not unless they designed GNM to be architecture agnostic from the outset. DirectX 12 solves the problem for Microsoft.
GrimThorne
Newcomer
Once developers figure how to scale up or down for each platform, supporting them won't become an issue. The choice you speak of will be made entirely around financial reasons. Developers will very likely patch as there shouldn't be a reason to release more than one physical copy to consumers.
Optimizing is another matter entirely, and might require some incentive from either Microsoft or Sony to get that wheel rolling because right now the only motivation studios have is re-releasing last gen titles to us.
As long as most games rely on UE4 or Unity, supporting multiple platforms can be a matter of checking some checkboxes and moving sliders...
If PS 4.5 is released with Zen + Vega + HBM2 in 2017, PS4 Slim can adopt the same architecture with defective processors with less functional cores to save the initial yield issues.
If PS 4.5 is released with Zen + Vega + HBM2 in 2017, PS4 Slim can adopt the same architecture with defective processors with less functional cores to save the initial yield issues.
You're not speaking from the position of a multiplatformer developer, are you?
Also, it's still not that simple.
You're not speaking from the position of a multiplatformer developer, are you?
I'm not lazy enough to do that job.
Good oneI'm not lazy enough to do that job.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Any studio (most) that also releases PC versions will already have experience with that. So that's not likely to be that much of a barrier. Microsoft and Sony won't have to incentivize scaling graphics IQ per console. Instead, what they'll have to do is QA in ensuring an equally playable experience (performance) across various supported console generations. And that will just be a matter of adjusting rendering settings, just like is already done on PC. Except instead of user configurable settings (would be nice but doubt it'd become commonplace on console) the developer/publisher will have a set configuration depending on the console generation the game is run on. That would preserve the "console" experience while allowing it to scale with hardware like PC games.
Something like that isn't popular on PC, of course. Many developers have tried to foist set graphics settings on PC users only to be virtually burned at the stake. Metro 2033 is a great example. But should be fine for console users who are used to not having any choice or freedom to change things (and probably prefer it that way).
Regards,
SB
This would just open the door to lazy developers.
Looking at Ubisoft; some their cross platform titles have been a stable 1080P. Farcry4 being the exception. Imagine what would happen if they got slightly more powerful hardware?
I understand that people which get off on resolution could build and maintain a Microsoft Windows PC, but I just want developers to optimise and push the hardware. Giving more power to developers which have known to employ lazy practices: not optimising, optimising only for the market-deal platform and so on, will just lead to even lower resolutions, less stable frame rates and overall worst gaming experiences.
Myself I try to avoid multiplatform titles, unless they are from good developers: Rocksteady, Sledgehammer games, Rockstar, Eidos, and some others. But I can see the appeal for good performing titles on a platform, which will benefit me in the end.
This upgraded console thing (if it's true)? Only PC and Xbox fans will love it, because it will damage the market leader; PlayStation
Looking at Ubisoft; some their cross platform titles have been a stable 1080P. Farcry4 being the exception. Imagine what would happen if they got slightly more powerful hardware?
I understand that people which get off on resolution could build and maintain a Microsoft Windows PC, but I just want developers to optimise and push the hardware. Giving more power to developers which have known to employ lazy practices: not optimising, optimising only for the market-deal platform and so on, will just lead to even lower resolutions, less stable frame rates and overall worst gaming experiences.
Myself I try to avoid multiplatform titles, unless they are from good developers: Rocksteady, Sledgehammer games, Rockstar, Eidos, and some others. But I can see the appeal for good performing titles on a platform, which will benefit me in the end.
This upgraded console thing (if it's true)? Only PC and Xbox fans will love it, because it will damage the market leader; PlayStation
Michellstar
Regular
I don´t think he´s been ironic, he means it.
Anyway, one thing could end up being true.
This gen it´s been so far a "Home run" for Sony, what´s the point of a soft-reset mid gen?
I mean, now it´s time for the old slim-rehash, reaping Sony the benefits of a smaller node, lowering prices and reaching a potential 80/100 million customers.
If they choose to release a real more powerful ps4, they open the gates to the competition to react, even outmanoeuvre them, be it price, performance, whatever.
There is no point at Ms this time, taking Kinect out of the equation, not to match Sony in every front, if they want to compete.
Anyway, one thing could end up being true.
This gen it´s been so far a "Home run" for Sony, what´s the point of a soft-reset mid gen?
I mean, now it´s time for the old slim-rehash, reaping Sony the benefits of a smaller node, lowering prices and reaching a potential 80/100 million customers.
If they choose to release a real more powerful ps4, they open the gates to the competition to react, even outmanoeuvre them, be it price, performance, whatever.
There is no point at Ms this time, taking Kinect out of the equation, not to match Sony in every front, if they want to compete.
IMO it's a home-run but not enough for them and they have to prepare for the next competition beyond the console space.
They could win against Microsoft and Nintendo, but PS4 sales in Japan are not great for example due to Apple & Google. VR is the key differentiator. Devices like AppleTV will invade the casual space so Sony have to keep the technical edge in a shorter span. Also, there's no growth without invading the other space when you already made the huge success in the traditional space and audience, they have to further go into the competition with the PC and the Steam ecosystem by catering to those who can shell out more money for their entertainment. Nowadays no one buys Windows PC for personal use (except for people like me who preordered Oculus Rift) due to Mac, the same thing can happen for gaming PC if the update cycle of consoles becomes shorter and the visual gap between the high end PC and consoles becomes smaller.
Why can't they do both? PS4 slim for <$200, and PS4k for $400
Why would Bethesda or anyone else target PS4.5 with an install base of a few million to the detriment of the 50+ million PS4 owners? Devs target the lowest common denominator for economic reasons. That'll be PS4. It'll be the target platform for as long as software is selling on it. It'll only stop being a target when the market has naturally progressed, and that would be determined by the market. If gamers whole-heartedly embrace the 4.5 versions, software will move to that platform as the base target more quickly. However, that's unlikely. What would almost certainly happen is PS4 getting developed for exactly as is, and a little effort being put into supporting the 4.5 for the small niche that buys into it. Basically, offer those with the more expensive hardware a smoother framerate or higher res. That compares to last gen, where PS3 games started getting really crap framerates as the devs pushed the pretties. For those who can endure
0 fps games, PS4 will still be a great option. For those who want something smoother, there's the option of 4.5, or waiting longer until PS5. Because ultimately no-one is forced into any buying option, and it's all choice. All we're talking about here is another choice."Assassins Creed Pirates", "Watch_Dogs" and some other ubisoft games already had higher sales on 'next-gen', the place with an install base of only a few million, leaving 50+ million PS3 owners with sub-par crappy versions. While it's true that PS4.5 would be closer to PS4 then PS4 to PS3, I still don't think that they would treat the PS4 install base with respect. on the contrary.
Objectively PS3 saw the greatest technical titles near the end: compare GTA5 with RDR on PS3, or GOW:A, or Uncharted 1 vs 3. Bioshock 1 versus Infinite, and so on.
The way I see it; the only choice an invested PS4 player as myself would have: upgrade, or play crappy 3rd party titles.
If that's what having a choice means, then I'd rather have no choice
Objectively PS3 saw the greatest technical titles near the end: compare GTA5 with RDR on PS3, or GOW:A, or Uncharted 1 vs 3. Bioshock 1 versus Infinite, and so on.
The way I see it; the only choice an invested PS4 player as myself would have: upgrade, or play crappy 3rd party titles.
If that's what having a choice means, then I'd rather have no choice
