The Console Arms Race: Is This What Console Gamers Want?
- Thread starter Shortbread
- Start date
I think FF XV has top 10 best realtime graphics ever. But the game is 900P... and 25-30fps.
If the PS4.5 could play the game at 1080P locked 60fps. i would buy the PS4.5
However... if the PS4.5 would have the game at 1080P 30-45fps.... then what's the f*cking point? Tell me
Sony hired some people for forward compatible related stuff years ago. Why would users buy a console which is upgraded just little bit? They want people to upgrade this year or next year to a little bit better graphics/performance, and then within 2 years upgrade again, but this time to the REAL successor: PS5, meaning 3928*2348 30fps locked FF XV ?
Unless PS4.5 becomes the only SKU, same price, replacing the PS4.0 model.. then it would make sense to have slightly better performance. But to have the 2 side by side at different price points would be irritating to everyone
If the PS4.5 could play the game at 1080P locked 60fps. i would buy the PS4.5
However... if the PS4.5 would have the game at 1080P 30-45fps.... then what's the f*cking point? Tell me
Sony hired some people for forward compatible related stuff years ago. Why would users buy a console which is upgraded just little bit? They want people to upgrade this year or next year to a little bit better graphics/performance, and then within 2 years upgrade again, but this time to the REAL successor: PS5, meaning 3928*2348 30fps locked FF XV ?
Unless PS4.5 becomes the only SKU, same price, replacing the PS4.0 model.. then it would make sense to have slightly better performance. But to have the 2 side by side at different price points would be irritating to everyone
Why? No-one seems irritated at the high- and low- end TVs and phones and GPUs and everything else available.
This isn't the same as buying a £500 tablet only for a new tablet at the same price to come out shortly after. We're talking the difference between an Galaxy S3 for £580 and an S5 two years later at the same price alongside the S3 for £300. You have the choice of the latest, greatest phone at the high price, or a perfectly capable machine, flagship a few years ago, at a notable discount. If you bought the S3 and now want an S5, you can buy one. It's absolutely ludicrous to think phones shouldn't be progressed so as not to upset those who bought a phone from their device being superceded!
3 years later you mean, not 2. Since XO/PS4 wouldnt be refreshed until at least 3 years of age (2016).
Silent_Buddha
Legend
A few things since I don't feel like going back to pick individual posts to respond to.
I expect a hardware cycle to be every 3-4 years. Roughly half the current cycle.
I expect 2 models of hardware to be available at any given time. Current (full price) and once cycle earlier ("slim" pricing, 100-200 USD cheaper). For example, 399 new console versus 199-299 old console (price depending on manufacturing cost reductions as well how much margins the console maker wants).
I expect development cycles to target the lowest common denominator for any given cycle. In a hypothetical PS 4.x and XBO.x that would be the XBO for multiplatform. For exclusives that would be either the PS4 or XBO.
This means that with regards to hardware and software development. Nothing changes. A full console cycle is still 6-8 years. It's just that each console cycle starts every 3-4 years.
Hence using PS4 as an example so I don't have to keep typing PS4/XBO.
Current cycle using old system. PS4 - as generation goes on programs start to run less and less well, 60 FPS games likely not possible towards the end of the generation and some games struggle to hit 30 FPS due to increasing demands for better looking games. Games are optimized for that platform from start to finish.
New Cycle where an updated console is released halfway through a consoles life cycle.
PS4 = baseline. 1st half of life mix of 30/60 FPS titles. 2nd half of life mostly 30 FPS and games struggling to achieve 30 FPS.
PS4.1 (3-4 years after PS4) = 1st half of life mostly 60 FPS titles as games are optimized for PS4. 2nd half of life mix of 30/60 FPS titles as games are optimized for PS4.1
PS4.2 (3-4 years after PS4.1) = 1st half of life mostly 60 FPS titles as games are optimized for PS4.1. 2nd half of life mix of 30/60 FPS titles as games are optimized for PS4.2
etc.
Replace console numbers with whatever you want, it's unlikely to follow the same guidelines. It's possible they could go with a X.5 or they could increment each one by a whole number (so instead of PS4.5 coming out it would be PS5). This is because each succeeding upgraded console is an equivalent upgrade over the previous one. IE PS4 versus PS4.5 would be the same magnitude of upgrade as PS4.5 versus PS5.
Not only do you keep the same development and console life cycles. It's quite likely that games will look and perform better towards the end of the console life cycle than they currently do.
1st half of each cycle is optimized for the previous console with additional tweaks (FPS and/or resolution and/or better graphics effects) for current console. 2nd half is when games are optimized for that console with additional tweaks for the new console. That ensures that there's a far more gradual increase in graphics IQ with far less performance compromises than in previous generations while maintaining the full life cycle of any given console.
This is especially relevant when you consider a quality AAA game (especially new IP) can take in excess of 3-4 years to develop. If it starts with a new generation, you can start optimizing for the new generation and by the time it comes out the next generation is going to hit. And you just throw some extra settings at it while your game comes out optimized for the console you started development on.
It's a more natural fit for game development. Rather than struggling to release something in time for the release of a new generation.
Regards,
SB
I expect a hardware cycle to be every 3-4 years. Roughly half the current cycle.
I expect 2 models of hardware to be available at any given time. Current (full price) and once cycle earlier ("slim" pricing, 100-200 USD cheaper). For example, 399 new console versus 199-299 old console (price depending on manufacturing cost reductions as well how much margins the console maker wants).
I expect development cycles to target the lowest common denominator for any given cycle. In a hypothetical PS 4.x and XBO.x that would be the XBO for multiplatform. For exclusives that would be either the PS4 or XBO.
This means that with regards to hardware and software development. Nothing changes. A full console cycle is still 6-8 years. It's just that each console cycle starts every 3-4 years.
Hence using PS4 as an example so I don't have to keep typing PS4/XBO.
Current cycle using old system. PS4 - as generation goes on programs start to run less and less well, 60 FPS games likely not possible towards the end of the generation and some games struggle to hit 30 FPS due to increasing demands for better looking games. Games are optimized for that platform from start to finish.
New Cycle where an updated console is released halfway through a consoles life cycle.
PS4 = baseline. 1st half of life mix of 30/60 FPS titles. 2nd half of life mostly 30 FPS and games struggling to achieve 30 FPS.
PS4.1 (3-4 years after PS4) = 1st half of life mostly 60 FPS titles as games are optimized for PS4. 2nd half of life mix of 30/60 FPS titles as games are optimized for PS4.1
PS4.2 (3-4 years after PS4.1) = 1st half of life mostly 60 FPS titles as games are optimized for PS4.1. 2nd half of life mix of 30/60 FPS titles as games are optimized for PS4.2
etc.
Replace console numbers with whatever you want, it's unlikely to follow the same guidelines. It's possible they could go with a X.5 or they could increment each one by a whole number (so instead of PS4.5 coming out it would be PS5). This is because each succeeding upgraded console is an equivalent upgrade over the previous one. IE PS4 versus PS4.5 would be the same magnitude of upgrade as PS4.5 versus PS5.
Not only do you keep the same development and console life cycles. It's quite likely that games will look and perform better towards the end of the console life cycle than they currently do.
1st half of each cycle is optimized for the previous console with additional tweaks (FPS and/or resolution and/or better graphics effects) for current console. 2nd half is when games are optimized for that console with additional tweaks for the new console. That ensures that there's a far more gradual increase in graphics IQ with far less performance compromises than in previous generations while maintaining the full life cycle of any given console.
This is especially relevant when you consider a quality AAA game (especially new IP) can take in excess of 3-4 years to develop. If it starts with a new generation, you can start optimizing for the new generation and by the time it comes out the next generation is going to hit. And you just throw some extra settings at it while your game comes out optimized for the console you started development on.
It's a more natural fit for game development. Rather than struggling to release something in time for the release of a new generation.
Regards,
SB
Last edited:
trainplane
Newcomer
While the PS4.5 will attract many PS4 early adopters and enthusiasts, in many ways, it's just the latest iteration for those who don't have a console. Similarly, you want an Apple tablet? It happens to be the iPad Air 2.
Remember, what these companies really care about is the total active user base. It's all about the software. Sony can say they have xx millions PS4, PS4.5, PS5 active users that publishers can target. In many, ways, it's a new approach that combines tablets and PCs. The problem with tablets is that devs don't take advantage of the latest hardware and the problem with PC's is there are too many combinations. With PS4.5, it's two versions devs can code for..
Something else to note--as far as I know, consoles is the one tech product today with the longest period between upgrades. Even DSLRs, which are notorious for taking a long time between upgrades do it every 3-4 years.
Remember, what these companies really care about is the total active user base. It's all about the software. Sony can say they have xx millions PS4, PS4.5, PS5 active users that publishers can target. In many, ways, it's a new approach that combines tablets and PCs. The problem with tablets is that devs don't take advantage of the latest hardware and the problem with PC's is there are too many combinations. With PS4.5, it's two versions devs can code for..
Something else to note--as far as I know, consoles is the one tech product today with the longest period between upgrades. Even DSLRs, which are notorious for taking a long time between upgrades do it every 3-4 years.
Would people buy a 499 euro 2.8 teraflop Xbox One.Five over a 249 euro PS4?
If development targets the baseline PS4 anyway?
Maybe one of them could use the advancements in chip development to create smaller, more power efficient, but most of all cheaper consoles? (for example a PS4 with a 12nm APU and single 64 gigabit GDDR5 chip if such a thing ever existed)
100 million Wii tells us that there is a market for people who would put price and content before competing consoles which were 5-10 times more powerful.
A cheap(er) PS4 with compelling exclusive content, interesting alternative way to play games (VR), great 3rd party support, with a +50 million user base to back it up might compete very favourably against a mid generation Xbox One spec update/refresh.
Microsoft is possibly trying to allow multi-platform multiplayer to negate the delta in active users on competitors. If you can play the new COD against your PS4 friend with your Xbox anyway? you might as well get an Xbox 1.5 then. i mean Halo right?
If development targets the baseline PS4 anyway?
Maybe one of them could use the advancements in chip development to create smaller, more power efficient, but most of all cheaper consoles? (for example a PS4 with a 12nm APU and single 64 gigabit GDDR5 chip if such a thing ever existed)
100 million Wii tells us that there is a market for people who would put price and content before competing consoles which were 5-10 times more powerful.
A cheap(er) PS4 with compelling exclusive content, interesting alternative way to play games (VR), great 3rd party support, with a +50 million user base to back it up might compete very favourably against a mid generation Xbox One spec update/refresh.
Microsoft is possibly trying to allow multi-platform multiplayer to negate the delta in active users on competitors. If you can play the new COD against your PS4 friend with your Xbox anyway? you might as well get an Xbox 1.5 then. i mean Halo right?
No, two because that's it was between S3 and S5. And people still didn't complain. For PS4, it's an even longer cycle with less course for complaint.
There's absolutely no way these companies are giving up on a lower priced model! Why are people still thinking of this as either a faster console or a cheaper one?? The console companies want a $250 or less console for Epic Sales. If all they offer is a $400 console, the rival with the $250 console gets many millions more sales. And if neither has an entry level price, that's half the market that'll never buy their machines as they're too expensive.
cheapchips
Veteran
If the mid-cycle console's sits nicely between the prior and next iteration then I think it could work for big budget titles.
Better to target a rolling 2 generations than ditch a whole market and wait for the new one to grow.
It's not like this gens launch titles were anything more than tarted up previous gen titles. The cost of making big budget games doesn't really allow for anything else now does it?
Better to target a rolling 2 generations than ditch a whole market and wait for the new one to grow.
It's not like this gens launch titles were anything more than tarted up previous gen titles. The cost of making big budget games doesn't really allow for anything else now does it?
Sigfried1977
Legend
I really like consoles because the shifting scales business in both the PC and mobile sectors are annoying as hell. Buying a box that'll serve me for 5 years is immensely appealing to me (and to the vast majority out there who aren't constantly obsessing over pixel counting and framerates for that matter). I also think it's amusing how the current generation gets lambasted for it's "inadequacy" like no other before it even though it's easily the one with slickest looking and performing games since consoles made the transition from 2d to 3d (well, the PS4 at least). Remember how impressed people were by the likes of Uncharted and Killzone 2 despite constant tearing and performance profiles well below the 30fps mark?
Heck, if there was at least good reason for an upgrade. I get the New 3DS for example, because it finally lets you use the handheld's marquee feature without giving you a sore neck and a splitting headache in the process.
By the way, all of the above refers strictly to the gaming aspects of the machine. If they want a new box that can display 4K Blu Rays while everything else remains as is they have my blessings.
Heck, if there was at least good reason for an upgrade. I get the New 3DS for example, because it finally lets you use the handheld's marquee feature without giving you a sore neck and a splitting headache in the process.
By the way, all of the above refers strictly to the gaming aspects of the machine. If they want a new box that can display 4K Blu Rays while everything else remains as is they have my blessings.
Last edited:
If you aren't fussed about framerates and pixel counts, what does it matter. Keep your PS4 and be happy with it exactly the same whether there's a higher power version or not.
I am in for a PS4 (k) Slim: 33% smaller, max TDP 60W, BD 4K, HDMI 2.3, plus all the cables/connectors to connect PSVR in the back.
I can see that work; same (reduced) price point: 299 euro at that moment. The OG PS4 could be out phased a few weeks before to ensure there is not much old stock.
I am only guessing the breakoutbox won't be incorporated; it powers PSVR al well as it would create double the PSVR SKU's, unless they ship possibly redundant breakoutboxes with either one
I can see that work; same (reduced) price point: 299 euro at that moment. The OG PS4 could be out phased a few weeks before to ensure there is not much old stock.
I am only guessing the breakoutbox won't be incorporated; it powers PSVR al well as it would create double the PSVR SKU's, unless they ship possibly redundant breakoutboxes with either one
Yep. Budget gamers can skip a release and stay on the same 8-year-cycle they have now. Buy PS4, skip PS4.5, buy PS5. Won't block you from playing any games, assuming they have full backwards/forwards compatibility.
Sigfried1977
Legend
I'm fussed about getting shafted is what I am though. With the current model developers are forced to work their asses off to make the best possible game for the machine I've bought, no matter whether it's dated ot not. Excuses like "well, if you really want the true experience you can always upgrade" simply won't fly. Want a very current example of an hardware upgrade biting the folks who stuck with the older system in the ass? - Try and play Hyrule Warriors on the old 3DS. Awful framerate, no 3D, but hey, you can always buy the newer system if you don't like it, right? (obviously you won't find a "warning, game runs like crap on your old 3DS" sticker anywhere on the box)
There's also the psychological component. Nothing would piss me off more than that nagging feeling in the back of my head of how a little extra money might have bought me a bit of extra fidelity here and some extra frames there etc. Right now I have to live with what I got, and that's how I like it. It's precisely why I don't really like PC gaming.
I can see your point, and it all depends on how it goes. However, I'm confident that market forces would focus on the current base tier as the standard, optimise for that, and let the high end run a little better with no real concern because that market will be too small to bother with directly. The Hyrule Warriors example is what happens when the old system isn't powerful enough for a game that's targeting the new system. In essence it shouldn't have had a down-port, like some next-gen games ported in ropey fashion to last-gen systems in the first year or two, before devs move on completely.
If 4.5 could run a game PS4 couldn't, then some devs might target 4.5 and let PS4 struggle as best it can. But more realistically the 4.5 experience will be exactly the same as the 4, with the hardware playing it a bit faster and higher res. So just like SOTC pushed PS2 beyond its limits and you had the option, there'll be some games that push the PS4, or are just basly optimised, where you can play them better for a price.
Ultimately, the notion of devs being forced to optimise the shitz out of your console is a fallacy. Economics prevent it, and there are many examples of sub-par games. These aren't going to be well optimised for the console with or without a .5 option. The .5 option means you can experience a better game. eg. Everyone can play Bloodborne; some can play it at 60 fps if it's worth that much to them.
If 4.5 could run a game PS4 couldn't, then some devs might target 4.5 and let PS4 struggle as best it can. But more realistically the 4.5 experience will be exactly the same as the 4, with the hardware playing it a bit faster and higher res. So just like SOTC pushed PS2 beyond its limits and you had the option, there'll be some games that push the PS4, or are just basly optimised, where you can play them better for a price.
Ultimately, the notion of devs being forced to optimise the shitz out of your console is a fallacy. Economics prevent it, and there are many examples of sub-par games. These aren't going to be well optimised for the console with or without a .5 option. The .5 option means you can experience a better game. eg. Everyone can play Bloodborne; some can play it at 60 fps if it's worth that much to them.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
The way to ensure this is for Sony to maintain the existing TRCs. Actually, make them a bit tougher because some games really shouldn't have been released with the frame rates they launched at. Send the message that if performance is below par on the oldest PlayStation, it's not being certified for release. They should be doing this anyway.
Write the lowest specification TRCs in blood (not literally) and permit no transgressions. Devs are still going to be targeting the lowest common denominator anyway, which will likely be Xbox One, and even if you focus on exclusives dev are going to be focussed on the biggest user base and that will almost ways be the oldest supported generation.
