Sony Remains Unsure Whether Console Refreshes Are the Way Forward

[Megalith]

Will there be another PlayStation 4 Pro? Your guess is as good as Sony’s: Jim Ryan, Global Head of Marketing and Sales at PlayStation, has suggested that console refreshes are still in an experimental phase. That isn’t too surprising, being that the Pro only launched late last year. My reading on this is that it may be safe for those who want a PS4 (but are afraid it will be replaced in short time) to just jump in, as Sony may opt for a true generational leap with a PS5, which will take a longer time to get ready.

It’s a very interesting question. The cultural phenomenon of regular updates to smartphones and tablets is without question, perhaps subliminally, coloring mindsets. And the days of a 13-year PlayStation 2 cycle will almost certainly never repeat themselves. But equally, a platform is a very delicate ecosystem, and if that platform is to succeed, you’ve got to give those who make content for it the chance to recoup on it. At the end of the day, like it or not, these are businesses.

 

[Derangel]

Well, when you half-ass your refresh in order to rush it out to market of course it isn't going to provide easy, clear, answers right away.

 

[runudownquick]

Well, when you half-ass your refresh in order to rush it out to market of course it isn't going to provide easy, clear, answers right away.

Who says they half assed it, you? They realized after the PS3 came out at 500/600$ that people didn't want to pay that much for a console, so they built one accordingly.

 

[Denpepe]

Well, there are 2 options, 1 they know and don't want to share the info and 2 there is not going to be a refresh or they would know by now, it's not something you make overnight.

I just hope that if they go PS5 it will still be backwards compatible.

 

[Krenum]

Forward never backward, upward not forward & always, twirling , twirling , twirling towards freedom!

 

[Derangel]

Who says they half assed it, you? They realized after the PS3 came out at 500/600$ that people didn't want to pay that much for a console, so they built one accordingly.

At launch it felt like Sony rushed the Pro to the market in order to upstage Microsoft.

 

[Brian_B]

I can see this going one of a few ways:

We get this mid-lifecycle refresh. When the PS5/ XB2(?) Whatever next gen comes out, we lose compatibility with both current gen consoles. Depending on how the mid-cycle refresh did to rejuvenate/maintain sales figures up, we may see them again next generation, maybe not. My opinion leans towards not for whomever is leading that generation, and definitely for whomever starts out in second place (and therefore forces the #1 guy to do it as well to maintain parity) -- but I admit I don't have first hand knowledge of any of that. I feel like that's what drove this cycle - PS4 came out strong and caught MS off guard, MS planned a midcycle refresh to catch up, Sony rushed something out there to head them off at the pass, and we are where we are today.

Option 2: everyone just kind of forgets about it. I mean, we're on what, the 17th hardware version of the Nintendo DS/3DS/2DS and no one really cares anymore. People didn't go apeshit for PS3 Slim (or maybe they did, idk). Vendors can (or cannot) release mid-generation refreshes and it's just not a huge deal. Everyone is just going nuts now because they are increasing some hardware power, but really, they aren't doing all that much, because as a dev you still have to support the earlier hardware at a minimum, so you get some resolution/texture/framerate to play with and .. that's about it. Not all that exciting really. This is where I think we will land, after all the hoopla and fallout from Scorpio has finally landed, but maybe my socks will get blown off, we'll see.

Option 3: We do kinda of get a more flexible platform similar to a PC - where we have a rolling window of back-supported hardware, and titles can sort of pick and choose what level of compatibility in the hardware they want/need to support. This would not really require, but would greatly benefit from, a standardized hardware platform - as that's what has more or less enabled the PC ecosystem to do that. You do see older hardware eventually roll off compatibility, but at the same time, newer hardware is more rapidly introduced as well. I don't think this will happen, because it would tend to lock the hardware manufacturers into vendors more tightly than they are accustomed to, but who knows - it would be pretty interesting. I don't know that this occurs with Consoles being sold as entire prepackaged units without any real level of modularity, but it could be.

Option 4 - this is still the long shot, but you can see it being eyeballed: The console as a service model, where the hardware is more or less arbitrary (right now it's mostly just a form of physical DRM more than anything). Your games belong "in the cloud" and streamed - not necessarily in realtime like PS Now tries to. Also could be per-install license with multiple hardware configurations supported (kinda like XBL Play Anywhere)

 

[maxius]

i think a updated pro with a uhd drive and a video bump is the next option next gen wont see the light of day till 2020-2022 as some games dev cycles are 5 years

 

[Master_shake_]

they should have a box you can open without voiding a warranty and are able to upgrade said box with better graphics faster memory faster cpus and bigger storage.

too bad they don't exist yet.

 

[chenw]

Honestly, the way PS4 has it implemented really don't paint a pretty picture (no pun intended).

While if I were to get a PS4 now, I see absolutely no reason NOT to get a PS4 pro, the fact that most games don't see a benefit, and few games seeing a detriment when running on newer hardware, it becomes a chicken and egg problem.

The only way I can see it working is if it imitates the PC model (not going to happen, since that removes one benefit of console gaming: convenience), or force all games to follow a strict set of streamlined graphical settings (eg texture, AA, etc), and let the consoles themselves choose the settings (EG PS4 running all on medium settings, PS4 Pro running all on high), with possibly some user input.

Besides that, I don't see the point. Most publishers are not going to update games they already made/lost their money on, especially if the publishers went bankrupt.

 

[chenw]

they should have a box you can open without voiding a warranty and are able to upgrade said box with better graphics faster memory faster cpus and bigger storage.

too bad they don't exist yet.

They do, kinda (you can open your rig without voiding your parts' warranties), it's called a PC.

 

[Ocellaris]

They do, kinda (you can open your rig without voiding your parts' warranties), it's called a PC.

Where can people learn more about this so called pee cee?

 

[swatbat]

At this point I kinda expect both sony and Microsoft to just keep releasing new versions every few years on the same platform. They are both now on x86 using semi standard pc graphics hardware. I don't see either really going away from that and spending the shit ton of cash to make something different as nothing is really competing with it in that power range.

Maybe in 4 or 5 years we will see a ps4v2 or something with a few generations newer graphics subsystem and a faster processor with maybe a few more cores. At that point they drop support on new games for the ps4 and require a ps4 pro to run them. I kinda expect MS to do the same.

It isn't that bad of a setup. There are advantages to a locked down console(and disadvantages).

On the MS side it could be even more interesting with their games that can run on both the pc and on the console.

 

[next-Jin]

I expect a PlayStation 5 that is fully backwards compatible with PS4/PS4Pro released in 2020. I also expect the OS to be a continuation of their current OS for PS4.

In other words every 3/4 years they will release a system in a tick/tock format, where they keep building on their OS improvements.

The Store wouldn't show PS5 games on PS4 (much in the same way PS4 doesn't show PS3 games) but PS5 should show both.

There is no reason why they wouldn't do this, many interviews across the board with both MS and Sony show they don't want to do another generation where it is a straight reset like normal.

Developers would be thrilled with this model as it would save costs and time.

The next generation will use an AMD SoC likely:

Ryzen 8 Core
Vega+
16 GB HBM2

With their next Pro being an upclocked Ryzen with Vega++ and upclocked memory just like the current PS4 Pro.

I just don't see them putting in tons of R&D into a new controller design, OS, etc. Their business model is great and what they are doing works. They have made significant progress in their OS updates.

All they need to do is make some updates to their controllers (better quality) and release the PS5 at the right time with many suggesting 2020/2021. That should be enough time to see significant upgrades to the hardware and a die shrink.

Microsoft is a bit different, they will likely update the OS but hardware wise and backwards compatibility I expect to be very similar to what I suggested earlier.

 

[oROEchimaru]

my guess is 4k cloud streaming or vr streaming is the future... of which the ps4 or ps5 could serve more as the media/streaming box?

 

[Thretosix]

Who says they half assed it, you? They realized after the PS3 came out at 500/600$ that people didn't want to pay that much for a console, so they built one accordingly.

You mean the same company that created like 5 versions of the PS3 with different forms of backwards compatibility depending on the version? The same consoles that people paid thousands of dollars to get at launch. You really think people won't pay the money? You realize people are still paying $300 a pop for the NES Classic right?

 

[next-Jin]

You mean the same company that created like 5 versions of the PS3 with different forms of backwards compatibility depending on the version? The same consoles that people paid thousands of dollars to get at launch. You really think people won't pay the money? You realize people are still paying $300 a pop for the NES Classic right?

True, by that is niche. I don't think anyone would argue however that if PS4 was 600 dollars they wouldn't be 2.5:1 over Microsoft in sales.

It's a huge hurdle to overcome and the original PS3 and Xbox One releases are easy examples to show.

Jaguar, 3DO, Neo Geo, etc. all show high price launches don't far well. It took Sony a huge price drop, rebranding, and Uncharted 2 alongside a large diverse lineup to catch-up and they barely got out of the red.

 

[Domingo]

I hope console upgrades die right here and now. Nobody wins. Upgraded console owners only get a slightly upgraded version of a game that's gimped by the non-upgraded version. Hell, in some cases they're gimped even further by multi-platform licensing like Destiny 2.

Give me a new system that has exclusive games but also backward compatibility instead.

 

[swatbat]

my guess is 4k cloud streaming or vr streaming is the future... of which the ps4 or ps5 could serve more as the media/streaming box?

I think we are a generation or two away from that. I could see more of a push to that as time goes on though.

 

[ZodaEX]

I hope console upgrades die right here and now. Nobody wins. Upgraded console owners only get a slightly upgraded version of a game that's gimped by the non-upgraded version. Hell, in some cases they're gimped even further by multi-platform licensing like Destiny 2.

Give me a new system that has exclusive games but also backward compatibility instead.

Wrong. Sometimes you must have an upgraded console to play a game at all such as Zelda Majora's Mask (N64 version). You have no idea what your talking about.

 

[zamardii12]

At launch it felt like Sony rushed the Pro to the market in order to upstage Microsoft.

I don't think so. Sony announced their product way ahead of Microsoft. If anything, Microsoft is taking too long to release the One X when the Sony foot-hold is already growing and has been growing. Not to mention the fact that the main concern Microsoft has is their exclusives problem. There is not on single Xbox exclusive I am looking forward to except State of Decay 2 which is also coming out for PC, but the only reason i'm buying it is so I can play with a friend of mine who doesn't have a PC.

I hope console upgrades die right here and now. Nobody wins. Upgraded console owners only get a slightly upgraded version of a game that's gimped by the non-upgraded version. Hell, in some cases they're gimped even further by multi-platform licensing like Destiny 2.

Give me a new system that has exclusive games but also backward compatibility instead.

That's not true at all. Speaking from experience, I upgraded my PS4 when the PS4 Pro came out. I can tell you first-hand that the difference between some games is strikingly amazing. It is not a slight upgrade, but everything runs much smoother from the UI to the games. Faster loading times, HDR support, 4K checkerboarding looks incredible, and the list goes on. What Sony was able to accomplish with the PS4 Pro for $399 is truly amazing.

 

[Domingo]

Wrong. Sometimes you must have an upgraded console to play a game at all such as Zelda Majora's Mask (N64 version). You have no idea what your talking about.

What does Majora's Mask's expansion pack have anything to do with 1.5 console revisions? If you look the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X - they have NO exclusive content. As of today both companies have said there are no plans for any either. They simply have possible upgrades for existing games that have to run on the other versions of those consoles. Thanks to the world of haves and have nots, developers are not incentivized to put much effort into the ports without MS or Sony putting up $ to make it happen, too. Are you really going to put much effort into a version of the game that only 25% of people are going to play?

Rather than a stop gap with slight upgrades to existing games (which are gimped by old systems), we'd be better off with totally new machines with their own exclusive games and BC in case you want to play the older games. Just like how the Xbox 360, PS2, and PS3 launched.

 

[Domingo]

That's not true at all. Speaking from experience, I upgraded my PS4 when the PS4 Pro came out. I can tell you first-hand that the difference between some games is strikingly amazing. It is not a slight upgrade, but everything runs much smoother from the UI to the games. Faster loading times, HDR support, 4K checkerboarding looks incredible, and the list goes on. What Sony was able to accomplish with the PS4 Pro for $399 is truly amazing.

I've had one since day 1 and I feel the exact opposite. It's a minor upgrade and yes, I have a really big 4K TV with HDR. The load times went from really long to...slightly less long? The jump up from the PS3 to PS4 was probably the smallest jump from one generation to the next in my lifetime and this was even smaller. It also only affects a small % of games and the system was full price. No thanks.

 

[Flexion]

they should have a box you can open without voiding a warranty and are able to upgrade said box with better graphics faster memory faster cpus and bigger storage.

too bad they don't exist yet.

It exists. They're called gaming PCs. hahaha j/k

 

[Derangel]

I don't think so. Sony announced their product way ahead of Microsoft. If anything, Microsoft is taking too long to release the One X when the Sony foot-hold is already growing and has been growing. Not to mention the fact that the main concern Microsoft has is their exclusives problem. There is not on single Xbox exclusive I am looking forward to except State of Decay 2 which is also coming out for PC, but the only reason i'm buying it is so I can play with a friend of mine who doesn't have a PC.



That's not true at all. Speaking from experience, I upgraded my PS4 when the PS4 Pro came out. I can tell you first-hand that the difference between some games is strikingly amazing. It is not a slight upgrade, but everything runs much smoother from the UI to the games. Faster loading times, HDR support, 4K checkerboarding looks incredible, and the list goes on. What Sony was able to accomplish with the PS4 Pro for $399 is truly amazing.

I agree on MS taking too long. The XBX is going to be a powerful console, but being a year late and not offering a lot is bad for them. They probably should have launched around E3 time or even a little sooner, but then they would have no games to really push with it. MS is just in a bad spot in general right now when it comes to video games.

 

[focbde]

I don't think so. Sony announced their product way ahead of Microsoft. If anything, Microsoft is taking too long to release the One X when the Sony foot-hold is already growing and has been growing.

I agree with you about MS perhaps taking too long, but not about the announcement. I believe news broke about the PS4 Pro around the same time as MS officially announced Project Scorpio at E3 2016, which was June - http://kotaku.com/microsoft-announces-project-scorpio-1781897948

The official announcement of PS4 Pro wasn't until September though I believe.

It does seem fairly clear, in opposition to what you said, that Sony rushed the PS4 Pro to be first to market not just in terms of announcement, but in terms of what it contained - they were able to do it faster, because there wasn't that much more to the upgrade. Whether that's a bad thing or not - not sure. As you said, we still don't have the One X and therefore the PS4 Pro has had a hell of a head start, however it's also a VERY underwhelming release.

 

[Aurelius]

To the people who think Sony should treat the PlayStation like a PC:

NO.

One of the whole points of console gaming is that it offers a simple, consistent way to play games. If you buy a console, you know every game built for that platform will always run properly. You don't have to screw with component upgrades; you don't have to drop $1,500 just to make sure a game has reasonable loading times and the prettiest visuals (I mean, owning a PS4 Pro requires a 4K TV to get the most out of it, but that's another matter). The self-contained nature also helps with economies of scale, since you only have a handful of variants to produce.

I'm reminded of the hardcore advocates who insist that Apple "must" let other companies license macOS if it wants to succeed. In both cases, doing what these people want would kill the very advantages they supposedly cherish.

 

[Spidey329]

The only way I can see it working is if it imitates the PC model (not going to happen, since that removes one benefit of console gaming: convenience), or force all games to follow a strict set of streamlined graphical settings (eg texture, AA, etc), and let the consoles themselves choose the settings (EG PS4 running all on medium settings, PS4 Pro running all on high), with possibly some user input.

That's how the PS4 Pro was supposed to work.

Originally, newer titles would need to have two presets (Pro and normal), the game would detect the hardware and choose the correct preset.

Not such a bad idea if you limit the number of refreshes.

 

[MV75]

they should have a box you can open without voiding a warranty and are able to upgrade said box with better graphics faster memory faster cpus and bigger storage.

too bad they don't exist yet.

They do, kinda (you can open your rig without voiding your parts' warranties), it's called a PC.

It exists. They're called gaming PCs. hahaha j/k

Satire
--------------------
chenw, Flexion.

 

[Flexion]

Satire
--------------------
chenw, Flexion.

hahah.. I kinda figured after I made the reply.

 

[westrock2000]

they should have a box you can open without voiding a warranty and are able to upgrade said box with better graphics faster memory faster cpus and bigger storage.

too bad they don't exist yet.

They do, it's called an Apple. Upgradable hardware within strict standards and guidelines to ensure maximum compatibility. And you all bitch about it constantly.

On a PC, you are giving up a lot of performance by having the overhead of hodge podge set-ups.

 

[Ur_Mom]

they should have a box you can open without voiding a warranty and are able to upgrade said box with better graphics faster memory faster cpus and bigger storage.

too bad they don't exist yet.

No way. I want to be able to play exclusives that no one else can. So, I'd need the midrange of what you're selling so it's cheap enough, and then some games that I can play but those with shittier devices cannot. I really want to be locked in on this. If I upgrade, I want all my old games to not work on the new upgraded system unless I rebuy them from the cloud based game delivery service.

You damn heretic (that was a cool game).

 

[chenw]

That's how the PS4 Pro was supposed to work.

Originally, newer titles would need to have two presets (Pro and normal), the game would detect the hardware and choose the correct preset.

Not such a bad idea if you limit the number of refreshes.

That's the implementation I wanted to avoid. The presets in the current implementation must be done by the publishers post-release, which is NEVER a good idea, since they may not have financial incentives for doing so, or the publisher may already be gone.

What I meant is this:

All games must have tiered assets and graphical features that is allowed to be changed, much like PC games have currently, except it's standardised (for sake of argument, let's just limited to AO, Textures and AA), and each set must have a standard number of settings (3, 5 and 4 for example).

The hardware then reads the various settings, and then sets them according to its own hardware capabilities. IE Base model runs it at a certain setting, Pro runs it at another setting.

The exact opposite of the implementation today, which the software runs at its own built in settings according to what hardware it's being loaded onto. Here the hardware actually chooses those settings, which takes the responsibility out of software developer's hands (they merely needs to provide the means of doing so, the actual implementation is done by hardware), so there is no 'old' and 'new' games segregation, just like PC games.

 

[focbde]

To the people who think Sony should treat the PlayStation like a PC:

NO.

One of the whole points of console gaming is that it offers a simple, consistent way to play games. If you buy a console, you know every game built for that platform will always run properly. You don't have to screw with component upgrades; you don't have to drop $1,500 just to make sure a game has reasonable loading times and the prettiest visuals (I mean, owning a PS4 Pro requires a 4K TV to get the most out of it, but that's another matter). The self-contained nature also helps with economies of scale, since you only have a handful of variants to produce.

Agree, however there is a middle of the road option - having two or three SKUs with varying power and price points, and so games have varying levels of detail built into them and switch automatically depending on what version of the hardware you're on - you're guaranteed the game will work on all platforms at a consistent frame rate, but just at different detail / wow levels. Economies of scale still come into it as a large part of the manufacturing for the console would be the same. I don't think upgrade paths are a good idea - ie. you're stuck with what you get. (although it WOULD allow those with a bit more savvy to break out the toolkit, if they're able to obtain parts to do it themselves).

It's reasonably similar to how cars are sold - different levels of spec, same production line.

This would also allow console makers to stick to a pretty long platform life.

Edit: Just realised me and chenw above posted pretty much the same thing

 

[M76]

my guess is 4k cloud streaming or vr streaming is the future... of which the ps4 or ps5 could serve more as the media/streaming box?

Streaming is a temporary thing, it will fade into irrelevance even before it could become a thing as new hardware will be able to provide the same graphics locally without effort.

 

[Aurelius]

Agree, however there is a middle of the road option - having two or three SKUs with varying power and price points, and so games have varying levels of detail built into them and switch automatically depending on what version of the hardware you're on - you're guaranteed the game will work on all platforms at a consistent frame rate, but just at different detail / wow levels. Economies of scale still come into it as a large part of the manufacturing for the console would be the same. I don't think upgrade paths are a good idea - ie. you're stuck with what you get. (although it WOULD allow those with a bit more savvy to break out the toolkit, if they're able to obtain parts to do it themselves).

It's reasonably similar to how cars are sold - different levels of spec, same production line.

This would also allow console makers to stick to a pretty long platform life.

Edit: Just realised me and chenw above posted pretty much the same thing

I agree with that. I'm fine with the PS4/Pro and Xbox One S/X split, just not the notion of turning a console into a generic PC by another name. Really, the point is not to erase that common foundation that lets everyone know they can play the same games as their friends without feeling "punished" for not dropping hundreds of dollars every year. And keep it simple -- don't dribble out new models every couple of years just to avoid making a more fundamental leap.