Some games will probably work better automatically. Stuff like faster loading is a given but otherwise it's completely dependent on how the game was made. Who knows, there could be games that actually automatically break if they were made too specifically for the current PS4. I could imagine Fallout 4 running into new bugs when the game gets access to more power.
I don't think faster loading is a given at all. The main impediment to loading on an Xbox One or PS4 is not the processor or GPU, it's the 5400 rpm hard drive that's being used. And I think it's highly unlikely that they would go to a solid state drive because those are very expensive compared to platter drives.
Look at FPS as a metric. Thirty FPS is a minimum for playability, and sixty FPS is ideal. Anything beyond 60 FPS adds no real improvement. If developers targeted a consistent 60 FPS goal, then an upgraded system wouldn't even be needed. As it is, developers are setting their standards too high. That's not an issue with the system, because the specs (currently) are static. I feel like we're trying to make the mountain come to Mohammed.
And if one system does offer an FPS advantage over the previous generation, it will have a huge impact on segments of gaming such as twitch based games (shooters, demanding platformers), any game with multiplayer (unless they split the player base), and streamers.
"Runs better" is such a nebulous term though. Run better how? In what way? I don't think it's as easy and brainless to just add +5 to some hardware numbers and suddenly everything just "runs better". Actual work has to be done. And if that tweet a while back is true, then apparently developers are already saying "...Fuck" at that work.
And I'm absolutely going to be on the side of pure cynicism and say that if your game is struggling to hit 30 fps on the OG PS4, it's probably not going to magically be a silky 60 on the Neo.
So best case scenario, devs put in the work. Worst case, they don't, or get really technical with whatever Sony's mandate is. If it's "The Neo version must be as good as the PS3 version", then both will be exactly the same. If there must be an improvement, it'll be the cheapest, minimalist work possible (these textures are slightly better, that counts, ship it!). Or here's a dose of pure concentrated cynicism that I don't think would ever happen... hopefully. A multiplayer game supports 16 players on the PS4, but 32 on the Neo. But then the game can't fully handle the 32 players at once and runs the same as or slightly worse than the PS3 version.
And the best case scenario has its own hurdles to overcome. Mainly in the fact that consumers aren't very interested in getting the "gimped" version of a game.
I suspect that most people won't know or care about getting a 'gimped' version, especially the crowd that only buys Madden or CoD. To us, the hardcore guys who treat it as a hobby, yeah we will care. We are the market for this product.
I dunno, maybe going in expecting the worst is a good way to take it, so you can be pleasantly surprised when it doesn't turn out as bad as people seem to think. Me, I have no expectations other than what little info we have. Nobody is expecting the Neo to descend from the heavens like a console Jesus, it's just nice to have an option.
And no, I am not a software developer, and I understand optimization can be difficult. I just find it interesting that indie devs with teams smaller than a handful of people can still somehow optimize their games for thousands of configurations and also port them to consoles. Adding one more flavor to that isn't going to throw a wrench into it. I guess I have more faith in them than most people do?
Some games will probably work better automatically. Stuff like faster loading is a given but otherwise it's completely dependent on how the game was made. Who knows, there could be games that actually automatically break if they were made too specifically for the current PS4. I could imagine Fallout 4 running into new bugs when the game gets access to more power.
I don't think faster loading is a given at all. The main impediment to loading on an Xbox One or PS4 is not the processor or GPU, it's the 5400 rpm hard drive that's being used. And I think it's highly unlikely that they would go to a solid state drive because those are very expensive compared to platter drives.
Look at FPS as a metric. Thirty FPS is a minimum for playability, and sixty FPS is ideal. Anything beyond 60 FPS adds no real improvement. If developers targeted a consistent 60 FPS goal, then an upgraded system wouldn't even be needed. As it is, developers are setting their standards too high. That's not an issue with the system, because the specs (currently) are static. I feel like we're trying to make the mountain come to Mohammed.
And if one system does offer an FPS advantage over the previous generation, it will have a huge impact on segments of gaming such as twitch based games (shooters, demanding platformers), any game with multiplayer (unless they split the player base), and streamers.
> 60 frames does give significant gains to games and players that require precision movements and reactions, but the diminishing returns are real.
But yeah, the problem is the consumer climate of 1080p/60FPS being this expected industry standard for this generation of games from the get-go, in contrast to the previous generation where the expectations of the developers boiled down to "please git gud"
(Someone post comparison shots of early-X360/PS3 games and late-X360/PS3 games ples :P)
BRIAN BLESSED on
0
CokomonOur butts are worth fighting for!Registered Userregular
We currently have Rocket League, a game that runs at 60 on PC, having cross-system play with the PS4 version, which runs at considerably less than 60
And it works out totally fine
And not every single person runs at 60 fps on PC, and yet competitive online gaming has been around on PC for way longer than it has on consoles. This whole thing is a non-issue.
I think the people that are really concerned about being at an FPS disadvantage are the same people that would foot the bill for a higher specced console or PC gaming rig.
Really, the biggest issue for consumers is how much worse the games run on the original consoles vs. the .5 versions.
If the .5 runs at 60 FPS and the originals run at close to 30, then that's something that will be likely ignored.
But if the version for the originals runs Hyrule Warriors 3DS bad, the bitching will likely spread from the hardcore to regular consumers.
At this point we have no idea how bad the "average" performance hit will be. My biggest concern is that the current financials behind AAA development are so jacked up we're already getting games arriving with massive performance issues hitting the lowest common denominator systems just so the games can release on time and keep the revenue going in this era of hugely reduced AAA game releases. Adding yet another resource sink to development will just make the problem worse.
One thing to keep in mind is that more than likely games won't use a whole other set of art assets for anything. At most we'll be looking at more shaders/particles/slightly better lighting.
Textures and models will most likely be the same between modes. The bump isn't enough to warrent 2 sets of assets.
One thing to keep in mind is that more than likely games won't use a whole other set of art assets for anything. At most we'll be looking at more shaders/particles/slightly better lighting.
Textures and models will most likely be the same between modes. The bump isn't enough to warrent 2 sets of assets.
So cost might not be as bad as it would seem.
Hopefully. But I have no idea what's involved in taking a game from regular HDTV to 4K, which is the most frequently touted benefit of the upgrades. Anyone know how much effort that takes?
The amount of effort it takes to do 4K versus 1080p is loosely 4 times as much. The PS4K will most definitely NOT be actively rendering in 4K, games will be upscaled from whatever resolution the game is actually running in. Top-of-the-line PCs can barely run games at 4K with 60fps, a game console that did that would cost more than $1000.
One thing to keep in mind is that more than likely games won't use a whole other set of art assets for anything. At most we'll be looking at more shaders/particles/slightly better lighting.
Textures and models will most likely be the same between modes. The bump isn't enough to warrent 2 sets of assets.
So cost might not be as bad as it would seem.
Hopefully. But I have no idea what's involved in taking a game from regular HDTV to 4K, which is the most frequently touted benefit of the upgrades. Anyone know how much effort that takes?
They're not going to be rendering at 4k besides ui elements. It's not nearly a big enough bump power wise to do so.
One thing to keep in mind is that more than likely games won't use a whole other set of art assets for anything. At most we'll be looking at more shaders/particles/slightly better lighting.
Textures and models will most likely be the same between modes. The bump isn't enough to warrent 2 sets of assets.
So cost might not be as bad as it would seem.
Hopefully. But I have no idea what's involved in taking a game from regular HDTV to 4K, which is the most frequently touted benefit of the upgrades. Anyone know how much effort that takes?
1080p signal in ===> Scaler ===> 4k signal out
Done. It's literally no work. Developers just have to get their game to render 1080p and the scaler does the grunt work.
Unless we're talking games actually rendering at 3840x2160, in which case an Nvidia Titan can only do a shaky 30 fps, much less 60. That GPU alone runs in the neighborhood of $1500 and you still need a computer to put it in. There's no way we're going to see a console for $399 rendering 4k/60fps.
This whole discussion about 4K is why I feel like it's a complete gimmick. It's a more expensive screen for very little improved experience. If much rather improved performance or control schemes instead of an increase I can't see.
Especially when a good portion of new 4K TV's already have a scaler built-in. Granted, you might trust PS4K's scaler to perform a little better (maybe) than the one in your TV already, but it's kind of a redundant piece of hardware.
Well, the One was released in 2013, so if this happens in 2017 then it'd actually be following the normal console generation pattern of 4-5 years. In actuality, the ~10 year lifespan of the previous generation is the exception.
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
Well, the One was released in 2013, so if this happens in 2017 then it'd actually be following the normal console generation pattern of 4-5 years. In actuality, the ~10 year lifespan of the previous generation is the exception.
While it's the exception, I'm not sure why the trend would reverse now.
Well, the One was released in 2013, so if this happens in 2017 then it'd actually be following the normal console generation pattern of 4-5 years. In actuality, the ~10 year lifespan of the previous generation is the exception.
While it's the exception, I'm not sure why the trend would reverse now.
Because hardware manufacturers want to make money on hardware _and_ games.
Well, the One was released in 2013, so if this happens in 2017 then it'd actually be following the normal console generation pattern of 4-5 years. In actuality, the ~10 year lifespan of the previous generation is the exception.
While it's the exception, I'm not sure why the trend would reverse now.
Because hardware manufacturers want to make money on hardware _and_ games.
Turning consoles into just PC that only play games is not going to make that happen. If anything it sounds like a great way to undermine the argument for consoles existence.
Well, the One was released in 2013, so if this happens in 2017 then it'd actually be following the normal console generation pattern of 4-5 years. In actuality, the ~10 year lifespan of the previous generation is the exception.
While it's the exception, I'm not sure why the trend would reverse now.
Because hardware manufacturers want to make money on hardware _and_ games.
Turning consoles into just PC that only play games is not going to make that happen. If anything it sounds like a great way to undermine the argument for consoles existence.
I agree, but that's why. And they don't want you to think of your console as a PC-lite, but rather a giant smartphone. I've got my account and my digital library, and when I buy the newer, shinier one all my existing shit works just a little bit faster!
I'm with you that it's a bad idea and anti-consumer, but making more money more often on hardware is exactly why they're doing it.
If forwards compatibility is something their focused on (making the upgrade optional), then every 4 years is about the sweet spot I was hoping for. Long enough that it's comparable to a shorter console generation; but still getting new hardware as a rapid clip.
Well, the One was released in 2013, so if this happens in 2017 then it'd actually be following the normal console generation pattern of 4-5 years. In actuality, the ~10 year lifespan of the previous generation is the exception.
While it's the exception, I'm not sure why the trend would reverse now.
Because hardware manufacturers want to make money on hardware _and_ games.
Turning consoles into just PC that only play games is not going to make that happen. If anything it sounds like a great way to undermine the argument for consoles existence.
At what point hasn't a console been a largely non-modular PC that can primarily play games and other entertainment medium?
edit: iirc, in the Atari days they were called entertainment computers or something like that. We call them consoles to make the distinction between them and computers that can do more than just play games.
tastydonuts on
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
Well yeah, but I still only up upgrade my phone every 2 years or so. Meanwhile, I almost always pickup hardware revisions of consoles. I bought a launch 360, then an Elite, and then a Slim. Just because not everyone runs out to buy a new console, doesn't mean there isn't a market for it.
Oops, forgot I blocked all of Gawker media's websites on the work network.
At this rate, I don't think Microsoft nor Sony give two shits about what Nintendo is doing anymore.
No, they definitely follow Nintendo's doings with great interest. After all, when Nintendo's console department kills the company, there's plenty of good game designers and valuable intellectual property in need of a new home.
Well yeah, but I still only up upgrade my phone every 2 years or so. Meanwhile, I almost always pickup hardware revisions of consoles. I bought a launch 360, then an Elite, and then a Slim. Just because not everyone runs out to buy a new console, doesn't mean there isn't a market for it.
There's potentially a market, sure.
Though it's a much, much smaller market than the pool of more casual people who would be confused or annoyed by this move.
I'm not willing to believe people are that stupid just because people didn't buy the Wii U
Maybe it wasn't just a confusing name
Maybe just nobody gave a shit about a new Nintendo console
Xbox One is selling well enough after all, and that's a much more confusing name
I don't think the prospect of a New Xbox One or whatever they call it would be that confusing to the marketplace, and frankly I find that thought process condescending
The only people annoyed by this would be hardcore fans, and to be honest they are the target market for these machines anyway. The old consoles aren't going anywhere, they will still play games.
The PC gaming market produced $21.5 billion in hardware sales last year, according to data from Jon Peddie Research, which is more than double the revenues derived from console sales. More notably, unlike the broader PC market, which continues shrinking, gaming PC sales are projected to increase over the next couple of years. The JPR analysis suggests the biggest chunk of gaming PC revenue — somewhere in the vicinity of 44 percent — comes from the so-called enthusiast segment, which the researchers identify as "very performance and style oriented, much like sports car owners."
I don't like the line of reasoning that " X industry should just give up" but the data suggests more money is made PC side these days. Consoles won't ever go away, but Indie games and MOBAs are among the best sellers in general for gaming.
Actually, the WiiU is one of the reasons why I think this can work.
People thought the WiiU was just another Wii with some enhanced capabilities; which is exactly what the Neo is supposed to be and what hopefully Scorpio will be. Ultimately, the idea would be if the consumer isn't knowledgable enough to know the difference between Box A and Box B; they won't ever wind up in a situation where they can't play a game because they bought the wrong box. (Unless they bought that box a long time ago, in which case it's the normal console generation conundrum.)
The PC gaming market produced $21.5 billion in hardware sales last year, according to data from Jon Peddie Research, which is more than double the revenues derived from console sales. More notably, unlike the broader PC market, which continues shrinking, gaming PC sales are projected to increase over the next couple of years. The JPR analysis suggests the biggest chunk of gaming PC revenue — somewhere in the vicinity of 44 percent — comes from the so-called enthusiast segment, which the researchers identify as "very performance and style oriented, much like sports car owners."
I don't like the line of reasoning that " X industry should just give up" but the data suggests more money is made PC side these days. Consoles won't ever go away, but Indie games and MOBAs are among the best sellers in general for gaming.
PC gaming has been "dying" since like 1996.
It has become a sort of in-joke for PC gamers due to the slew of articles that get released every time a new console launches about how the PC is dead now for reals this time no seriously guys.
Surprisingly, markets fluctuate over time. Analysts love to cry wolf anytime one side does better than the other, but there's always gonna be market for both sides (and mobile).
Posts
I don't think faster loading is a given at all. The main impediment to loading on an Xbox One or PS4 is not the processor or GPU, it's the 5400 rpm hard drive that's being used. And I think it's highly unlikely that they would go to a solid state drive because those are very expensive compared to platter drives.
Look at FPS as a metric. Thirty FPS is a minimum for playability, and sixty FPS is ideal. Anything beyond 60 FPS adds no real improvement. If developers targeted a consistent 60 FPS goal, then an upgraded system wouldn't even be needed. As it is, developers are setting their standards too high. That's not an issue with the system, because the specs (currently) are static. I feel like we're trying to make the mountain come to Mohammed.
And if one system does offer an FPS advantage over the previous generation, it will have a huge impact on segments of gaming such as twitch based games (shooters, demanding platformers), any game with multiplayer (unless they split the player base), and streamers.
We currently have Rocket League, a game that runs at 60 on PC, having cross-system play with the PS4 version, which runs at considerably less than 60
And it works out totally fine
I suspect that most people won't know or care about getting a 'gimped' version, especially the crowd that only buys Madden or CoD. To us, the hardcore guys who treat it as a hobby, yeah we will care. We are the market for this product.
I dunno, maybe going in expecting the worst is a good way to take it, so you can be pleasantly surprised when it doesn't turn out as bad as people seem to think. Me, I have no expectations other than what little info we have. Nobody is expecting the Neo to descend from the heavens like a console Jesus, it's just nice to have an option.
And no, I am not a software developer, and I understand optimization can be difficult. I just find it interesting that indie devs with teams smaller than a handful of people can still somehow optimize their games for thousands of configurations and also port them to consoles. Adding one more flavor to that isn't going to throw a wrench into it. I guess I have more faith in them than most people do?
PS - Local_H_Jay
Sub me on Youtube
And Twitch
> 60 frames does give significant gains to games and players that require precision movements and reactions, but the diminishing returns are real.
But yeah, the problem is the consumer climate of 1080p/60FPS being this expected industry standard for this generation of games from the get-go, in contrast to the previous generation where the expectations of the developers boiled down to "please git gud"
(Someone post comparison shots of early-X360/PS3 games and late-X360/PS3 games ples :P)
And not every single person runs at 60 fps on PC, and yet competitive online gaming has been around on PC for way longer than it has on consoles. This whole thing is a non-issue.
I think the people that are really concerned about being at an FPS disadvantage are the same people that would foot the bill for a higher specced console or PC gaming rig.
Twitter: Cokomon | dA: Cokomon | Tumblr: Cokomon-art | XBL / NNID / Steam: Cokomon
If the .5 runs at 60 FPS and the originals run at close to 30, then that's something that will be likely ignored.
But if the version for the originals runs Hyrule Warriors 3DS bad, the bitching will likely spread from the hardcore to regular consumers.
At this point we have no idea how bad the "average" performance hit will be. My biggest concern is that the current financials behind AAA development are so jacked up we're already getting games arriving with massive performance issues hitting the lowest common denominator systems just so the games can release on time and keep the revenue going in this era of hugely reduced AAA game releases. Adding yet another resource sink to development will just make the problem worse.
Textures and models will most likely be the same between modes. The bump isn't enough to warrent 2 sets of assets.
So cost might not be as bad as it would seem.
Hopefully. But I have no idea what's involved in taking a game from regular HDTV to 4K, which is the most frequently touted benefit of the upgrades. Anyone know how much effort that takes?
They're not going to be rendering at 4k besides ui elements. It's not nearly a big enough bump power wise to do so.
1080p signal in ===> Scaler ===> 4k signal out
Done. It's literally no work. Developers just have to get their game to render 1080p and the scaler does the grunt work.
Unless we're talking games actually rendering at 3840x2160, in which case an Nvidia Titan can only do a shaky 30 fps, much less 60. That GPU alone runs in the neighborhood of $1500 and you still need a computer to put it in. There's no way we're going to see a console for $399 rendering 4k/60fps.
PSN: Beltaine-77 | Steam: beltane77 | Battle.net BadHaggis#1433
PSN: Beltaine-77 | Steam: beltane77 | Battle.net BadHaggis#1433
Stick around for the ending segment (at 11:00) where he sums the situation up in anime form.
Edit:
Although if Emily Rogers recent post about the NX is true...
Twitter: Cokomon | dA: Cokomon | Tumblr: Cokomon-art | XBL / NNID / Steam: Cokomon
Nintendo was never going to have the strongest console on the market
Also why are you spoilering hardware speculation?
This time it is more rumored info about the XB1 upgrade path. An XB1 Slim this year, with an upgraded XB1 in 2017.
Twitter: Cokomon | dA: Cokomon | Tumblr: Cokomon-art | XBL / NNID / Steam: Cokomon
Hopefully that's enough time for Microsoft to realize this is a horrible idea.
Or maybe it depends on how well the NX sells?
PS - Local_H_Jay
Sub me on Youtube
And Twitch
At this rate, I don't think Microsoft nor Sony give two shits about what Nintendo is doing anymore.
PSN: Beltaine-77 | Steam: beltane77 | Battle.net BadHaggis#1433
While it's the exception, I'm not sure why the trend would reverse now.
Because hardware manufacturers want to make money on hardware _and_ games.
Turning consoles into just PC that only play games is not going to make that happen. If anything it sounds like a great way to undermine the argument for consoles existence.
I agree, but that's why. And they don't want you to think of your console as a PC-lite, but rather a giant smartphone. I've got my account and my digital library, and when I buy the newer, shinier one all my existing shit works just a little bit faster!
I'm with you that it's a bad idea and anti-consumer, but making more money more often on hardware is exactly why they're doing it.
And, the general public has moved away from desktop style PCs in favor of tablets/laptops.
PSN: Beltaine-77 | Steam: beltane77 | Battle.net BadHaggis#1433
At what point hasn't a console been a largely non-modular PC that can primarily play games and other entertainment medium?
edit: iirc, in the Atari days they were called entertainment computers or something like that. We call them consoles to make the distinction between them and computers that can do more than just play games.
Having two options isn't exactly confusing. We have multitudes of iPhones and somehow those still sell well.
PS - Local_H_Jay
Sub me on Youtube
And Twitch
Though people on average are waiting longer to buy the next version, even with the "holy shit I can upgrade every 47 hours" plans.
And consoles aren't thought of as being as disposable as smartphones.
PS - Local_H_Jay
Sub me on Youtube
And Twitch
No, they definitely follow Nintendo's doings with great interest. After all, when Nintendo's console department kills the company, there's plenty of good game designers and valuable intellectual property in need of a new home.
I rarely play my One - I bought it for Tomb Raider, and now use it for some BC stuff, so I'd likely never buy the new model
But I'm glad they're doing this as well
There's potentially a market, sure.
Though it's a much, much smaller market than the pool of more casual people who would be confused or annoyed by this move.
Maybe it wasn't just a confusing name
Maybe just nobody gave a shit about a new Nintendo console
Xbox One is selling well enough after all, and that's a much more confusing name
I don't think the prospect of a New Xbox One or whatever they call it would be that confusing to the marketplace, and frankly I find that thought process condescending
PS - Local_H_Jay
Sub me on Youtube
And Twitch
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2014/04/28/as-global-pc-game-revenue-surpasses-consoles-how-long-should-console-makers-keep-fighting/#6844d76a6f69
And
I don't like the line of reasoning that " X industry should just give up" but the data suggests more money is made PC side these days. Consoles won't ever go away, but Indie games and MOBAs are among the best sellers in general for gaming.
PS - Local_H_Jay
Sub me on Youtube
And Twitch
People thought the WiiU was just another Wii with some enhanced capabilities; which is exactly what the Neo is supposed to be and what hopefully Scorpio will be. Ultimately, the idea would be if the consumer isn't knowledgable enough to know the difference between Box A and Box B; they won't ever wind up in a situation where they can't play a game because they bought the wrong box. (Unless they bought that box a long time ago, in which case it's the normal console generation conundrum.)
PC gaming has been "dying" since like 1996.
It has become a sort of in-joke for PC gamers due to the slew of articles that get released every time a new console launches about how the PC is dead now for reals this time no seriously guys.
PS - Local_H_Jay
Sub me on Youtube
And Twitch