Sources: The Upgraded PlayStation 4 is Codenamed NEO, Contains Upgraded CPU, GPU, RAM

I also don't see this as being a problem for devs. It's not like they have to do a full rewrite. They just need to tell their game to play at a higher resolution at one end of the scale. Maybe include higher res assets toward the middle of the scale. On the high end, make sure their software's timing will work with 60FPS (if it was originally 30) include new assets, write some new shader effects, etc.) However, just allowing a higher resolution is NOT a major time sink for them, and would NEARLY justify the new hardware alone. (though I personally would hope for better FPS)

This is what I don't understand. The detractors of this system upgrade respond as though they are LOSING something, when they absolutely ARE NOT. They just have a higher end OPTION if they WANT it.
 
Youn said:
A few off the top of my head:

1. There's comfort in knowing that to stay up-to-date you only need to make a new purchase every 5 years or so.

2. It can also be a problem with wives/partners who don't like the "dirty habit" of gaming and already feel made a huge icky compromise with the "1 big toy every 5 year plan"

3. There's also that horrible feeling that you are playing a game on lower settings than available. PC gamers know this feeling when playing on lower graphics settings. It just SUCKS knowing you aren't experiencing the game at it's fullest, right? Maybe for you it's a 100 dollar upgrade, but for console gamers it'll be an ENTIRELY NEW console purchase.
Click to expand...

I agree with this...it's more about the principle...consoles always lasted a long time and was one of the 'benefits' of purchasing a console over PC (not having to worry about upgrades)...there's a big difference between gaming at 30fps vs 60fps...that along with the graphics upgrades will make players who bought the original PS4 feel they are not getting the full experience...it's almost a PS4-Lite versus the real PS4.5
 
polonyc2 said:
I agree with this...it's more about the principle...consoles always lasted a long time and was one of the 'benefits' of purchasing a console over PC (not having to worry about upgrades)...there's a big difference between gaming at 30fps vs 60fps...that along with the graphics upgrades will make players who bought the original PS4 feel they are not getting the full experience...it's almost a PS4-Lite versus the real PS4.5
Click to expand...

That's just it though. They ARE getting the full experience that they paid for. It's not like Sony is coming to their houses and ripping out half the RAM, and cutting traces to half of their cores. The PS4 is the PS4. Period. You get PS4 level performance, which is what you bought, and will continue to get. Any shortcoming you perceive is exactly that, your perception. It doesn't change the facts, the life of the console, or any other tangible item.

For those willing to pay more, they get an experience to match.

I have a 1080 TV. Someone else paid more and got a 4K. Should I complain that ALL TVs should stay at 1080? No. I live with my choice, and am happy with it. If I want to spend more on a new TV and new hardware to make it shine, that is an OPTION.
 
J3RK said:
That's just it though. They ARE getting the full experience that they paid for. It's not like Sony is coming to their houses and ripping out half the RAM, and cutting traces to half of their cores. The PS4 is the PS4. Period. You get PS4 level performance, which is what you bought, and will continue to get. Any shortcoming you perceive is exactly that, your perception. It doesn't change the facts, the life of the console, or any other tangible item.

For those willing to pay more, they get an experience to match.

I have a 1080 TV. Someone else paid more and got a 4K. Should I complain that ALL TVs should stay at 1080? No. I live with my choice, and am happy with it. If I want to spend more on a new TV and new hardware to make it shine, that is an OPTION.
Click to expand...

you can't compare this to buying a TV or anything else because consoles always lasted for a long time (5+ years)...this has never been done before for consoles...with TV's you expect new and better models to be released...when buying a new console there previously was no expectation of a better version being released until the next generation...when I bought my PS4 last year I was expecting it to be the best version...
 
Well, you can really compare it to ANYTHING that has multiple performance or value tiers. I see what you're saying, but it's still personal choice unless they force obsolescence. But that's not what they appear to be doing here by requiring parity between the two other than graphical enhancements.

You are still getting exactly the level of performance that you paid for, and it will still last as long as you had expected due to the way they are handling development. So, while technically there is a better model, and yes, it hasn't been done this way before, you're still not out anything at all. If you just HAVE to HAVE that shiny new version, that is purely your choice, based on whether you perceive it to have value. They still aren't taking anything away from you. I agree that it is unprecedented, but what exactly is having more available options hurting if they aren't cutting the original short?

If nothing else, this will prove one way or the other whether this is the sort of thing people want. If nobody buys the NEO because they are happy with what they have, then the classic approach to consoles is still holding up today. If everyone and their dog buys one, then I guess the classic approach is in need of some retooling.

I guess we'll find out.

Who knows, maybe we'll start seeing a two tiered release for every new console. 1080 and 4K

I doubt it, because by the time that could possibly happen, there may not be the same spread in TV adoption. It's just speculation. Or maybe it will all go cloud. :p

This also isn't ENTIRELY unprecedented either. Granted most previous attempts have flopped pretty hard, but there have been console upgrades in the past. N64 RAM Expansion. (which only helped SOME games, and was required for a few to even run) Much worse approach than a 100% compatible upgraded console that people could buy if they want, but don't have to. Sega 32X (same thing, required for some games, didn't help others). Sega CD was a better product, but still segmented the market, and eventually flopped. The PC Engine CD upgrade actually did pretty well comparatively. They didn't stop making HuCards, they just had an additional library of enhanced games for those that could afford it. It probably did the best of the upgrades. The 64DD for the N64 would have been another if it got off the ground, but magnetic media was a disaster waiting to happen IMO. Glad this one didn't really surface.

If anything companies have been attempting this for decades. This may be the first time it works BECAUSE they are requiring that all games support both, with mainly visual enhancements for the NEO. This is the way to make something like this work. Don't take away possibilities from the lower tier, just add an upper tier with ADDED possibility. If they decided to axe the lower tier in favor of the upper, or stop requiring devs to make the same game for both minus enhancements, then I could see people being pissed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I find this all quite interesting. Coming from the perspective of buying and using the original big three (Atari/Mattel/Coleco for those who don't know LOL), and working my way through the decades, the upgrade hardware-add-on has often been tried, but has never panned out. But in this case it isn't really an add-on, it is a separate console that includes that hardware add-on.
Interesting stratagy, and in this case I don't really see how Sony can loose with this tactic at the current time.
It will not slow down new purchases. In fact we all know it will spark them for the short term at least. Many will sell their old console for 1/2 what they paid for it after a two year use. So they get an updated machine for $200? Even if they are just hand-me-downs to family etc.. Sony gets a boost in market share. Seems smart to me.
Ultimately what this does is usher in the never ending compatibility. They aren't changing platforms with each new console release. They are just upgrading a-la PC. From this point forward there will just be newer versions of the PS4 and XBone, but not a separate new incompatible console. At least not for a very long time.
 
I figured something like this was coming, with x86 you'd have to see the writing on the wall.

I'd imagine we will get mid life upgrades if this is successful.

PS4>PS4k>PS5>PS5k>PS6

Every 3 years we have a bump in performance. With the policies they are implementing forcing unity in features and 30fps standard on PS4 I don't see an issue. We still maintain a 5-7 year life cycle and the tock releases come out at initial launch prices (hopefully), while the tick releases drop to 249.99 or ever lower.

PS4k MSRP: 399.99
PS4 MSRP: 249.99

The only thing I want to see with PS4k is SATA III. We know the hardware differences in the APU and memory bandwidth. SATA III with a 2TB 850 EVO would be a godsend.
 
J3RK said:
This is what I don't understand. The detractors of this system upgrade respond as though they are LOSING something, when they absolutely ARE NOT. They just have a higher end OPTION if they WANT it.
Click to expand...
They lose simplicity and peace of mind. Some feel they live in a world moving too fast with too many options...

If you don't feel that way, they consider yourself lucky :)
 
Youn said:
They lose simplicity and peace of mind. Some feel they live in a world moving too fast and with too many options...
Click to expand...

I do consider myself lucky :D

I agree with this, but it is still all in their heads. Anyone that can read and comprehend, or ask a few questions at a shop etc. can figure this out. It's 2016, I think a little change isn't a bad thing. People are connected 24/7 to information. If they can't do a little research-monkey(ing) TM then I guess... Tough? Not trying to be mean, but people getting stuck in their ways is for grandparents...
 
next-Jin said:
I figured something like this was coming, with x86 you'd have to see the writing on the wall.

I'd imagine we will get mid life upgrades if this is successful.

PS4>PS4k>PS5>PS5k>PS6

Every 3 years we have a bump in performance. With the policies they are implementing forcing unity in features and 30fps standard on PS4 I don't see an issue. We still maintain a 5-7 year life cycle and the tock releases come out at initial launch prices (hopefully), while the tick releases drop to 249.99 or ever lower.

PS4k MSRP: 399.99
PS4 MSRP: 249.99

The only thing I want to see with PS4k is SATA III. We know the hardware differences in the APU and memory bandwidth. SATA III with a 2TB 850 EVO would be a godsend.
Click to expand...

You got it.
The old fucked up tick tock shit.
The phone release bs, iPhone 5--5s--6--6s
 
Yeah, but people lap up the tick tock. Look at this place when either cycle of new video card or CPU gets released. It really does make sense to release something new, then release an update with cheaper/better processes. There's a reason everything eventually settles into this pattern.
 
J3RK said:
Yeah, but people lap up the tick tock. Look at this place when either cycle of new video card or CPU gets released. It really does make sense to release something new, then release an update with cheaper/better processes. There's a reason everything eventually settles into this pattern.
Click to expand...

Yes we do lap it up but we never reap any benefit from it.
Ps2- to ps3 was a massive jump.
Ps1 to ps2 same thing

It used to be exciting. And the tick tock stuff isn't helping the phone industry. People are so jaded with this stuff. I wouldn't buy an iPhone 7 knowing the 7s is going to Trump it.
 
I change moods on the tick-tock. Sometimes I hold off for the improvements, but sometimes I just want something new.
 
This is a bit different though as the tock is 3 years out. In the modern tech industry that's a long time. 3 more years down the line we get PS5 with HBM2 and other advances that would still be a rather large jump. The PS4k is not a gigantic jump imo. Yea there is a large 2x jump in GPU performance but unless we see developers really get into the metal with GPGPU to offload from the weak CPU even with a 500Mhz increase I couldn't imagine the differences being anything more than a fps increase or resolution increase.
 
I think they could squeeze more out of it than that, but in general, I think you're right. This will just allow for the resolution/frame rate settings that people have been asking for since before the PS4 was released. 1080/60 for games that would otherwise be upscaled and 30.
 
HardUp4HardWare said:
So Sony announces PS4.5 goes on sale Q1 2017 promises NEO games by Christmas 2017 with lots of promises
XMAS 2017 comes and they get COD NEO version and the consumer sits there scratching his ass asking himself why he even bothers.

Meanwhile PSVR hits the market and is immediately obsolete with crappy games and lots of promises. Q3 2017, Sony announces PSVR2 with lots of promises

Meanwhile I am done, this is pointless. I am still waiting for UC4.
I used to enjoy keeping tabs on the gaming industry but it is sheer pandemonium now. I just can't see a path where the consumer ever really wins.
Click to expand...

What about this is bad for the consumer? You're making it sound like a PS4.5 is literally kicking your dog.

There would be no COD NEO version. It'd be the same exact game with a hardware detect mechanism. It checks for the HW and then loads the appropriate graphics config.

To the consumer, they're losing nothing. They're being given the option of lower price or high fidelity. They don't have to buy two titles (like the X360 /Xone transition). It's a win. People who bought the PS4 should not feel left out because they're not being replaced behind an exclusive wall, all titles are required to work on both sets of hardware.
 
J3RK said:
it is still all in their heads
Click to expand...
I don't think it's about lack of understanding, but I'll try to explain another aspect to it...

Think about Christmas and how much anticipation is built up as it approaches. Now compare that to evenly distributing those same presents throughout the year.

If given the choice most children would choose the latter over former, sure, but don't you think they'd also miss out on that exciting feeling brought only through FORCED PATIENCE?

So yea, it's definitely a psychological ("all in your head") thing, but that doesn't mean there's no difference either way. It's a strange thing for some to think of nowadays with every little thing available at a press of a button, but that's doesn't mean there's no practical validity to it.
 
Youn said:
I don't think it's about lack of understanding, but I'll try to explain another aspect to it...

Think about Christmas and how much anticipation is built up as it approaches. Now compare that to evenly distributing those same presents throughout the year.

If given the choice most children would choose the latter over former, sure, but don't you think they'd also miss out on that exciting feeling brought only through FORCED PATIENCE?

So yea, it's definitely a psychological ("all in your head") thing, but that doesn't mean there's no difference either way. It's a strange thing for some to think of nowadays with every little thing available at a press of a button, but that's doesn't mean there's no practical validity to it.
Click to expand...

Oh, I completely understand what you're saying. However, in this particular case, there is really no downside IMO. (just my opinion) Your point would really resonate with me, if the upgraded PS4.5 played separate versions of games, had exclusives that weren't on the original PS4, or other issues like this.

As far as seeing a shinier new one after you already bought the first one, I do see what you're talking about. Upon a little more thinking though, one SHOULD (I know I know) realize that they're still getting exactly what they signed up for when buying it. As mentioned above, they could sell it or trickle it down to a friend or family member, relegate it to a spare room or bedroom, and pick up the new one. If an offset to the cost is needed, sell the old one. However, it's still just an option. I know I'm kind of arguing my same point in a slightly different way, but your point isn't lost on me.

I think it also applies more to a kid who maybe did receive this on a holiday, or had it bought for him/her. For those people, maybe seeing a nicer one later might cause some emotional impact. However, for some people it just won't matter because they can still play the games as intended. For the rest, the enthusiast, the person with some disposable income or the means to sell/trade up, buying the new version will be no big deal. The one thing I would say is that hopefully Sony will be VERY CLEAR about the fact that the games have functional parity.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but this sort of approach just makes sense. I don't mind the tick tock. I get something when I feel like getting it, not just because a slightly updated version is released. There was a time when I had to have the latest video card at all costs, but I grew out of that over time. I get the best I'm willing to afford at the time, and upgrade when I feel its value has diminished to me. If that's a tick cool, if it's a tock, cool. If it's upgrading mid-cycle to a higher tier, that's fine too. (as well as not upgrading for an extended period (like my CPU) because I don't feel too much has changed for the last couple of iterations.)

In the case of this PS4.5, it's even simpler. Basically no thought needs to be put into it. The reason a lot of people buy consoles (as mentioned above) is simplicity. Someone sees a system they want, that has the games they want. They buy it, and continue to play it. End of story. Someone a bit more into the hardware side, the console equivalent of a PC enthusiast, will in fact see the new one, and decide whether to get it or not. People are still playing on X360 and PS3s even. They bought a system, and play games on it until they either decide they want something else, or it dies and they HAVE to upgrade.

In any case, I just don't see any real reason to be against this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Spidey329 said:
What about this is bad for the consumer? You're making it sound like a PS4.5 is literally kicking your dog.

There would be no COD NEO version. It'd be the same exact game with a hardware detect mechanism. It checks for the HW and then loads the appropriate graphics config.

To the consumer, they're losing nothing. They're being given the option of lower price or high fidelity. They don't have to buy two titles (like the X360 /Xone transition). It's a win. People who bought the PS4 should not feel left out because they're not being replaced behind an exclusive wall, all titles are required to work on both sets of hardware.
Click to expand...

You know damn right it kicked my dog!
 
J3RK said:
I just don't see any real reason to be against this.
Click to expand...
MY EMOTIONS ARE REAL GOD DAMMIT!!!!!!

:p

I don't think you are in the minority with this line of thinking. If they had named it PS5 that might be more of a problem. It just makes you wonder if they'll release a PS4.6 a couple years later, because graphically it won't really feel like half an iteration has gone by...

Like Chrome being at version 50 (I just checked, wtf)... it still feels like version 1
 
Last edited:
Browser versions are absolutely ridiculous. Version 49.9.23.31432 B (Notice: This version number is made up, and doesn't necessarily correspond to an actual version number of any available or unavailable internet browser package.) :D
 
J3RK said:
Browser versions are absolutely ridiculous. Version 49.9.23.31432 B (Notice: This version number is made up, and doesn't necessarily correspond to an actual version number of any available or unavailable internet browser package.) :D
Click to expand...
It's not made up at all. :p

Chromium version numbers consist of 4 parts: MAJOR.MINOR.BUILD.PATCH.

  • MAJOR and MINOR may get updated with any significant Google Chrome release (Beta or Stable update). MAJOR must get updated for any backwards incompatible user data change (since this data survives updates).
  • BUILD must get updated whenever a release candidate is built from the current trunk (at least weekly for Dev channel release candidates). The BUILD number is an ever-increasing number representing a point in time of the Chromium trunk.
  • PATCH must get updated whenever a release candidate is built from the BUILD branch.
MAJOR and MINOR track updates to the Google Chrome stable channel. In this sense, they reflect a scheduling or marketing decision rather than anything about the code itself. These numbers are generally only significant for tracking milestones. In the event that we get a significant release vehicle for Chromium code other than Google Chrome, we can revisit the versioning scheme.

The BUILD and PATCH numbers together are the canonical representation of what code is in a given release. The BUILD number is always increasing as the source code trunk advances, so build 180 is always newer code than build 177. The PATCH number is always increasing for a given BUILD. Developers and testers generally refer to an instance of the product (Chromium or Google Chrome) as BUILD.PATCH. It is the shortest unambiguous name for a build.

For example, the 154 branch was originally released as 0.3.154.9, but now stands at 1.0.154.65. It's the same basic code with a lot of bug fixes applied. The fact that it went from a Beta release to several 1.0 stable releases just reflects the decision to call some version (1.0.154.36) 'out of Beta'.
Click to expand...
Version Numbers - The Chromium Projects
 
I personally think, Sony should REALLY push devs (by 'push', I mean 'hand fistfuls of cash') to retropatch their PS4 titles with Neo features. Imagine the response they would get to a console that will play ALL your games with better graphics, like a magic box that makes ALL your games look better. You enjoyed GTAV? Now enjoy it with better shadows, higher resolution reflections and 60 FPS! You enjoyed Bloodbourne? Now enjoy it with crazy blood effects, enhanced character detail and ful HD resolution!

Basically, everyone and their dog would want to pick this up and play their old games on it JUST TO SEE what changed.
 
I'm questioning if Sony is going to continue selling the original PS4 alongside PS4K, but I cannot imagine they would.
 
bigdogchris said:
I'm questioning if Sony is going to continue selling the original PS4 alongside PS4K, but I cannot imagine they would.
Click to expand...

Sure they will.
The PS4 will be the ghetto version for a couple years to cause people to say, "hey it is worth the extra hundred to get the NEO."
Plus they have to sell out the current supply and that will take a while. I think they will continue to manufacture PS4 for around 6 months to a year after the NEO and then phase it out.
 
I wouldn't be surprised if The Lost Guardian is released as a NEO enhanced title alongside God of War 4.
 
yea, I actually skipped PS3 in part because Last Guardian never came out on it... so if I can skip PS4 and enjoy all the missed games on NEO (I think all the big ones from PS3 are remade for PS4) then I'll be pretty happy...
 
I haven't bought a non-nintendo console for myself since... Hmmm... I think the PS One. I've had others in the house of course (my son has an XB1 and PS3 for example) and I buy every Nintendo console that gets released. However, I'm thinking I'll pick up a Neo and play some of the things I've missed in the past oh I don't know decade or two on Sony platforms. What really pushed me over the edge is that a new Shadow of the Beast game is getting released next month and will be PS4 only. :D I'm a sucker for anything that reminds of me of the Amiga.
 
Ps4neo is a bad idea. I expect Sony to stick to supporting the ps4 for 1 year after the neo is out then they will recind the requirement to make games not exclusive to the neo. And then they might as well have just called it the ps5...
 
Typical Sony, throwing people a box with upgraded hardware and no innovation.

At least the New 3DS actually has a second thumbstick rather than making you buy another peripheral.

Heaven forbid they let people upgrade the RAM and the GPU themselves, right? I swear, these new consoles have all the downsides of a PC and none of the positive elements.

I had never really picked a side in the console vs. PC thing... I always played both back when Nintendo was popular and consoles weren't about pushing pixels. But now that all platforms are getting the same games and consoles have x86 processors and upgrade cycles... I don't see the point. This generation is probably the one that's going to push me over the edge into picking the PC side permanently. There's literally almost no games worth playing that are exclusive to any platform.
 
Last edited:
athenian200 said:
Typical Sony, throwing people a box with upgraded hardware and no innovation.

At least the New 3DS actually has a second thumbstick rather than making you buy another peripheral.

Heaven forbid they let people upgrade the RAM and the GPU themselves, right? I swear, these new consoles have all the downsides of a PC and none of the positive elements.

I had never really picked a side in the console vs. PC thing... I always played both back when Nintendo was popular and consoles weren't about pushing pixels. But now that all platforms are getting the same games and consoles have x86 processors and upgrade cycles... I don't see the point. This generation is probably the one that's going to push me over the edge into picking the PC side permanently. There's literally almost no games worth playing that are exclusive to any platform.
Click to expand...
What downsides does a pc have?
Pc pros
upgradeable system
great 3rd party and 1st party support

cons
patches
load times
incompatibility with some hardware
windows...

consoles pros
more or less works out of the box
portable
better split screen style multiplayer

cons
system disposability (you can't just fix it)
title incompatibility (next gen likely won't play previous gen titles without a rebuy)


I donno i feel consoles would be doomed with better peripherals on pc side...
 
Lunas said:
What downsides does a pc have?
Pc pros
upgradeable system
great 3rd party and 1st party support

cons
patches
load times
incompatibility with some hardware
windows...

consoles pros
more or less works out of the box
portable
better split screen style multiplayer

cons
system disposability (you can't just fix it)
title incompatibility (next gen likely won't play previous gen titles without a rebuy)


I donno i feel consoles would be doomed with better peripherals on pc side...
Click to expand...

A big pro to console is that games are optimized to run on them while PC it is a crapshoot. I have sli 980 ti and some games still are optimized so poorly that it doesn't run much better.
 
Lunas said:
What downsides does a pc have?
Pc pros
upgradeable system
great 3rd party and 1st party support

cons
patches
load times
incompatibility with some hardware
windows...

consoles pros
more or less works out of the box
portable
better split screen style multiplayer

cons
system disposability (you can't just fix it)
title incompatibility (next gen likely won't play previous gen titles without a rebuy)


I donno i feel consoles would be doomed with better peripherals on pc side...
Click to expand...

image.jpg


And console games have pretty much the same number of patches as PC games now-a-days, unless you meant drivers.
 
Lunas said:
What downsides does a pc have?
Pc pros
upgradeable system
great 3rd party and 1st party support

cons
patches
load times
incompatibility with some hardware
windows...

consoles pros
more or less works out of the box
portable
better split screen style multiplayer

cons
system disposability (you can't just fix it)
title incompatibility (next gen likely won't play previous gen titles without a rebuy)


I donno i feel consoles would be doomed with better peripherals on pc side...
Click to expand...

Oh, you're missing the point a bit here. I agree with you that PCs are better than consoles. I just understand why they took off originally. Back in the NES and SNES days, your average person didn't have a good PC for gaming. Even in the N64 days, a 3D gaming card was a pricy proposition. It was such a demanding task that you essentially needed either really expensive hardware or a dedicated console.

That's changed now. Now, a gaming console that can meet modern graphical demands is no cheaper than a gaming PC. On top of that, games need to be patched even on consoles, you have to deal with updates, and there are even load times! Nothing is instant or easy anymore, and you have to deal with all the delays and bullshit you'd have to deal with on a PC.

I was always upset when Nintendo switched to optical media, because I knew how slow it was from experience. I hated playing games off CD-ROMs, and when I tried a PlayStation or a PS2... it felt like playing on a computer with a lousy CD-ROM drive. On computers of that era, I used to use no-CD cracks on games and install the whole thing on disk because I hated CD-ROM drives that much. Of course, Nintendo did their best to ensure they had a fast optical drive and tried to minimize load times on the Gamecube, but lazy developers seeking elbow room pushed that on us and weren't willing to wait on flash sizes to increase. It also limits the ability to add additional hardware on the cartridge itself, meaning that you're stuck with whatever the system had at launch. If the SNES had been CD-ROM based, the games on it couldn't have been half as good as they were because of things like the Super FX chip being added to individual games as extra hardware.

So here's what I'm seeing.

Console pros (1996):

Ease of use
Instant load times
More games
System is cheaper
Cartridges can double as little ISA/PCI cards with onboard hardware to expand system capabilities as needed
Base hardware is standardized for 5+ years
Higher install base

Console cons (1996):

High development cost
Limited Flash ROM space
Licensing/Publishing costs
Games cost more

PC pros (1996):

Low development cost
All the RAM and storage space you could want
Shareware/Demo publishing
Games cost less
Hardware is user upgradable/replaceable.
Patching games after release is easier

PC cons (1996):

Driver installation nightmares with IRQ settings
Slow load times (on CD-ROM especially)
Fewer big-name games
System costs more
Developers have to hit a moving target because PC hardware changes all the time
Patches and updates for the OS, drivers, and game might have to be installed in some cases to make things work
Low install base

As you can see, PC was clearly better for developers back then (especially indie developers), but offered little to gamers and end-users. Now, fast-forward about 19 years.

Console pros (2016):

Base hardware is standardized for 5+ years (sort of)
System is (a little) cheaper
A few exclusives or early releases

Console cons (2016):

Not upgradable or expandable without total replacement
You have to pay extra to play games online or get certain services
Games perform worse than PC ports which usually exist
Routine updates and patches take longer than on the PC due to slower hardware
Locked into buying digital games from a single source
Artificially limited to gaming and media consumption with modern hardware more than capable of other tasks

PC pros (2016):

Low development cost
All the RAM and storage space you could want
Games cost less
Hardware is user upgradable/replaceable
Patching games after release is easier
Free online play (usually)
Multiple mature distribution platforms to choose from
Homebrew and freeware games can be downloaded easily
Larger modding community for games like Elder Scrolls

PC cons (2016):

System costs (a little) more for equivalent performance to an Xbox One or PS4
Developers have to hit a (slowly) moving target
Console ports are often delayed so you have to wait longer on new games

It's obvious that developers have strong-armed console makers into making systems that are better for them, but each time they had to take away something convenient for the end user, until now a console is little more than a cheap PC that you can't upgrade. People who said that 20 years ago were taking the piss a little bit and exaggerating, but now it's the truth. Developers made it the truth, because they are lazy and would rather develop for a cheap and standardized PC than something with unique features. One by one, they forced console makers to give up any distinguishing features they could use as selling points, until now they're just bland boxes painfully similar to each other that are hard to love.

The only reason to buy a console in 2016 is because you can't afford a PC and want to play the latest games, or else because there's an exclusive you can't live without. Otherwise, it's not worth it.

Honestly, I wish the market had room for a modern take on a 1990s era video game console... no patches and no OS, just insert the game and play. The cartridge could include extra RAM, extra processors, or anything the developer needed to make the game work beyond what was included in the system. And the save RAM could be on the cartridge, so you don't have to fuss with Memory Cards or worry about how much disk space you have left. Yes, it would be pricy (probably about $100 a game), but if good games came out for it, I'd be tempted to pay. I'm so tired of price driving the market. I don't want hardware that's artificially limited to games, I want custom hardware that's actually optimized for specific games to the point that it performs better than what's available for PCs and doesn't work as well for other tasks... not adequately priced stuff that's inferior and artificially capped generic hardware with tons of throwaway features like a web browser, Netflix, and Blu-Ray playback.
 
Last edited:
[QUOTE="exlink, post: 1042267866, member:

And console games have pretty much the same number of patches as PC games now-a-days, unless you meant drivers.[/QUOTE]
Yes and for pc patches come quicker.
But depending on hardware PC load times can be so much worse than on consoles.

On PC you have games with bad compatibility with a wide range of hardware configurations. One card the game would crash because you had an AMD card in your system.

Btw I'm talking about fallout 4 patch 1.3 broke the game for me would not run on my machine at all. Was almost done with the game had over 200 hours logged patch dropped oh now you can't play and sorry no way to roll back unless you pirate it. Had to wait until 1.4 came out months later before it worked again...
 
I wouldn't say consoles work out of the box. Day 1 patches are pretty normal. Could you imagine playing a Bethesda game on console with no patches? Oh the humanity ....
 
bigdogchris said:
I wouldn't say consoles work out of the box. Day 1 patches are pretty normal. Could you imagine playing a Bethesda game on console with no patches? Oh the humanity ....
Click to expand...

They used to, though. Nowadays, I think developers rush the games out the door with the confidence that they can just patch it later. In the past, they did a lot more testing to make sure everything works because they weren't hooked into the Internet.

Now, no matter what platform you're on, it's more like, "Here, give us your money and play this beta version while we finish up our testing, okay? Oh, and if you want to submit a few bug reports, we'd love that too."
 
High speed internet connectivity has pretty much always meant that games can be fixed and updated.
Most people don't necessarily know or remember it, but back in the arcade days it wasn't crazy for games to be updated either. Games like Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat used to be updated via flash ROMs they'd mail operators. MKII went through dozens of revisions on the arcade side of things. They'd tweak everything from fatality motions to character balance. Most others would only fix major issues and bugs, but Midway would essentially release a beta product and then fix it over the course of months or years. Sometimes they'd even charge for the updates.
Releasing 1/2 finished games isn't new, but it's just more common and more in the spotlight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top