PS4.5 / PS4K is codenamed NEO, more info

[Roberticus]

20 minutes ago, glen8 said:

No chance!

 

If we see a playstation/xbox for £400 which can do 4k gaming I'll buy you one

Just look at the new graphics cards coming from AMD and Nvidia, 4K isn't that far away. 

[technord]

56 minutes ago, Roberticus said:

Just look at the new graphics cards coming from AMD and Nvidia, 4K isn't that far away. 

They are £600 each, and can barely manage 4k

 

I don't think we'll be seeing 4k consoles for a long time....who knows, it would be nice

[dipsylalapo Supervisor]

Just over a week left until it all kicks off, Xbox and Sony press conferences are going to be hella good.

[Luc2k]

37 minutes ago, glen8 said:

They are £600 each, and can barely manage 4k

 

I don't think we'll be seeing 4k consoles for a long time....who knows, it would be nice

Technically, AMD's new generation card (with 8GB) is 230, while their more expensive high-end one will come late 2016/early 2017. As for the 1080, while it may not manage 4K@60 with full details, console players are content with 30. Anyway, point is that there may be an APU that can pull 4K@30 with reduced details in late 2017. Price might be an issue though.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

The bigger issue for Sony at least isn't really 4k gaming, it's making sure PSVR has legs.

[+Asmodai MVC]

On 6/6/2016 at 6:07 AM, Audioboxer said:

The bigger issue for Sony at least isn't really 4k gaming, it's making sure PSVR has legs.

Personally I think requiring a new PS4k for the "best experience" with PSVR will help ensure it does NOT have legs.

One of the big things almost everyone points to as an advantage for PSVR is the 40+ million console "VR Ready" install base.  Well NONE of those 40+ million consoles are PS4k "Neo".  I know I for one was really excited about PlayStation VR but if I find out next week that sure my launch console can run it BUT for the best experience I'll need to buy a new $300+ PS4k instead then I'm going from early adopter to maybe next gen.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

14 hours ago, Asmodai said:

Personally I think requiring a new PS4k for the "best experience" with PSVR will help ensure it does NOT have legs.

One of the big things almost everyone points to as an advantage for PSVR is the 40+ million console "VR Ready" install base.  Well NONE of those 40+ million consoles are PS4k "Neo".  I know I for one was really excited about PlayStation VR but if I find out next week that sure my launch console can run it BUT for the best experience I'll need to buy a new $300+ PS4k instead then I'm going from early adopter to maybe next gen.

It won't be required VR will continue on the original PS4 but it will satisfy the hardcore who want better graphics and something closer to what PC VR can offer.

[Jason S. Global Moderator]

im still of the opinion that the Neo is being made solely for PSVR and UHD blu-ray.

[Jason S. Global Moderator]

On 6/6/2016 at 3:54 AM, glen8 said:

They are £600 each, and can barely manage 4k

 

I don't think we'll be seeing 4k consoles for a long time....who knows, it would be nice

i think we need to define what you mean by '4k'. i was gaming in 4k on my PC 2yrs ago with my GTX 680s. the resolution isnt such an issue as is all the features that go along with it, like textures, AA, and atmospheric effects.

 

also, the GTX 1080 is less than that and handles 4k just fine. on the console side, however, we wont be seeing 4k gaming this generation and i'd be surprised even on next gen.

[+Asmodai MVC]

3 hours ago, Audioboxer said:

It won't be required VR will continue on the original PS4 but it will satisfy the hardcore who want better graphics and something closer to what PC VR can offer.

I'm a hardcore and I want better graphics and something closer to what PC VR can offer but I also don't want the $400 console I bought to play lesser versions of new games just 3 years after it launched.  ESPECIALLY if that console is dominating in sales and has no real reason to alienate it's existing users like that and effectively make them second class PlayStation citizens to the PS4k owners.

 

I can't speak for others but feeling like I'm a second class citizen when it comes to VR is NOT going to encourage me to drop the $400+ for headset.  I was a day 1 buyer until this Neo crap came out but as far as I'm concerned if the rumors are true and Neo will get a better VR and/or PS4 gaming experience then launch consoles and not just use less power, smaller, and 4k video support for like Netflix and Ultra HD Blu-Ray then Sony is all but spitting on the 40+ million PlayStation owners who bought the existing console.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

2 hours ago, Asmodai said:

I'm a hardcore and I want better graphics and something closer to what PC VR can offer but I also don't want the $400 console I bought to play lesser versions of new games just 3 years after it launched.  ESPECIALLY if that console is dominating in sales and has no real reason to alienate it's existing users like that and effectively make them second class PlayStation citizens to the PS4k owners.

 

I can't speak for others but feeling like I'm a second class citizen when it comes to VR is NOT going to encourage me to drop the $400+ for headset.  I was a day 1 buyer until this Neo crap came out but as far as I'm concerned if the rumors are true and Neo will get a better VR and/or PS4 gaming experience then launch consoles and not just use less power, smaller, and 4k video support for like Netflix and Ultra HD Blu-Ray then Sony is all but spitting on the 40+ million PlayStation owners who bought the existing console.

You can't really say that and then mention the PC in the same sentence. When you buy a PC graphics card you are lucky if you get 6 months before something better is out and your experience is "second class".

 

In order to invest in VR at this stage you have to be honest and realize technology released in 2013 is not going to be "close to PC VR".

 

Your alternative is really don't have any better VR experience on PS4, and just have Sony try to slog out another few years with meh VR while the PC really continues to spank it? Is that really better for the sake of not feeling second class? As things stand you'll still be able to have your second class VR experience on the PS4, Neo in the docs isn't getting any exclusive content.

[+Asmodai MVC]

29 minutes ago, Audioboxer said:

You can't really say that and then mention the PC in the same sentence. When you buy a PC graphics card you are lucky if you get 6 months before something better is out and your experience is "second class".

I don't know what you're talking about here.  A console is NOT a PC.  One of a consoles strengths over a PC is that it's a fixed platform.   If I go out and buy a brand new PS3 today and grab a PS3 game it won't look any better running on that brand new PS3 then it does running on a launch PS3 from 2006.    It may have a bigger hard drive, the ports might different, it may run cooler, be physically smaller, and use less energy but the newer console doesn't run PS3 games at a higher resolution or higher fps... not even after 10 years.  The same is true for the first PS2 to come off the assembly line and the last as well as the first PS1 and the last.  Now, just 3 years after the PS4 launch it looks like the 40+ millions PS4 owners are about to get a lesser experience than anyone who buys a new one later this year.  That's a slap in the face to your customers in my book.

 

Quote

 

In order to invest in VR at this stage you have to be honest and realize technology released in 2013 is not going to be "close to PC VR".

I never said I expected it to be "close to PC VR".   If you look again the quote is "CLOSER".  2 is CLOSER to 100 than 1 despite neither being "CLOSE".

The PS4 can't do regular game graphics close to a gaming PC why would anyone expect VR to be different?  The PS4 gets CLOSER to PC than Xbox One in many cases though.

 

Quote

Your alternative is really don't have any better VR experience on PS4, and just have Sony try to slog out another few years with meh VR while the PC really continues to spank it? Is that really better for the sake of not feeling second class? As things stand you'll still be able to have your second class VR experience on the PS4, Neo in the docs isn't getting any exclusive content.

PSVR on a PS4k isn't going to be better than PC VR either from a strictly graphics standpoint.  You make it sound like with PS4k PSVR is going to have a more gfx power than PC and that's false.  It doesn't need to though.  If it could leverage the LAUNCH consoles it has a 40+ million install base of people who already own the "computer" to drive the headset making a much lower cost of entry.  Sure it won't look as good as PC but it would be affordable.  PSVR would be like the Toyota to PCs BMW.  Also PSVR has other unique features like the shared experience of having other players interact with the TV while the VR player uses the headset.  Most people have never used PC VR, the #1 VR right now is probably Samsung's Gear VR that uses a mobile GPU that's far weaker than even the launch PS4.  PC is going to be an expensive niche that offers the best experience for those willing to pay no matter what PS4k turns out to be.  If Sony can get the VR to run on launch consoles it has a chance of being more mainstream yet lower spec'd.  If it can't run on launch hardware then yes, they should just wait until the PS5 to launch it instead of splitting the PlayStation community for the first time ever within a single console generation.

[NeoWind]

On 4/20/2016 at 11:07 AM, glen8 said:

£500 graphics cards struggle with 4k, in fact I've seen sli struggle at 4k

 

4k gaming is 10 years away

Its not 10 years away  . The harsh fact boiled down to deep optimization for the PC just like console but it never really receive the exact same treatment on majority of games and only a fool will believe its impossible for current generation of GPU to handle 4K@50-60fps with ease. 

Edited June 8, 2016 by Master of Alien

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

4 hours ago, Asmodai said:

I don't know what you're talking about here.  A console is NOT a PC.  One of a consoles strengths over a PC is that it's a fixed platform.   If I go out and buy a brand new PS3 today and grab a PS3 game it won't look any better running on that brand new PS3 then it does running on a launch PS3 from 2006.    It may have a bigger hard drive, the ports might different, it may run cooler, be physically smaller, and use less energy but the newer console doesn't run PS3 games at a higher resolution or higher fps... not even after 10 years.  The same is true for the first PS2 to come off the assembly line and the last as well as the first PS1 and the last.  Now, just 3 years after the PS4 launch it looks like the 40+ millions PS4 owners are about to get a lesser experience than anyone who buys a new one later this year.  That's a slap in the face to your customers in my book.

 

I never said I expected it to be "close to PC VR".   If you look again the quote is "CLOSER".  2 is CLOSER to 100 than 1 despite neither being "CLOSE".

The PS4 can't do regular game graphics close to a gaming PC why would anyone expect VR to be different?  The PS4 gets CLOSER to PC than Xbox One in many cases though.

 

PSVR on a PS4k isn't going to be better than PC VR either from a strictly graphics standpoint.  You make it sound like with PS4k PSVR is going to have a more gfx power than PC and that's false.  It doesn't need to though.  If it could leverage the LAUNCH consoles it has a 40+ million install base of people who already own the "computer" to drive the headset making a much lower cost of entry.  Sure it won't look as good as PC but it would be affordable.  PSVR would be like the Toyota to PCs BMW.  Also PSVR has other unique features like the shared experience of having other players interact with the TV while the VR player uses the headset.  Most people have never used PC VR, the #1 VR right now is probably Samsung's Gear VR that uses a mobile GPU that's far weaker than even the launch PS4.  PC is going to be an expensive niche that offers the best experience for those willing to pay no matter what PS4k turns out to be.  If Sony can get the VR to run on launch consoles it has a chance of being more mainstream yet lower spec'd.  If it can't run on launch hardware then yes, they should just wait until the PS5 to launch it instead of splitting the PlayStation community for the first time ever within a single console generation.

Not at all, you've misunderstood me. I was saying a Neo is going to be slightly closer to PC VR than a PS4, and it'll give Sony's VR slightly longer legs till the PS5 comes out. PC will forever be the best for VR.

 

Someone who buys a PS3 a year before a PS4 gets put aside by hardware improvements as well ~ The reality of not buying day 1 is inching ever closer to something new coming out when you do buy. The point is if you only judge your enjoyment and ability to play games on what comes next, then you'll never be able to live in the moment and enjoy what you have now.

 

This bridges consoles closer to the PC environment, but it's still nowhere near as fast paced as PC updates. 3 years isn't as bad as yearly hardware refreshes, let alone almost 6 monthly on PC.

 

Sadly for you and others alike it's something you're either going to have to prepare for, or ignore and wait it out for a PS5 (your PS4 isn't becoming defunct or incapable of playing the releases coming out in the next year(s)). Xbox is going to do something similar next year from what we've learned. Unless consoles go modular in which case they are pretty much a PC, they'll probably begin faster generations going forward as our ability to shrink chips and fit ever more powerful hardware inside small enclosed cases improves. In all fairness though the last 12~18 months has really accelerated that. Remember the components for the PS4 and XB1 were tied up prior to launch during R&D. Now we have the ability to put pretty beastly AMD graphics chips in small cases with little airflow.

[technord]

19 hours ago, Jason S. said:

i think we need to define what you mean by '4k'. i was gaming in 4k on my PC 2yrs ago with my GTX 680s. the resolution isnt such an issue as is all the features that go along with it, like textures, AA, and atmospheric effects.

 

also, the GTX 1080 is less than that and handles 4k just fine. on the console side, however, we wont be seeing 4k gaming this generation and i'd be surprised even on next gen.

by 4k I mean playing games at 4096 x 2160 resolution above 30fps min fps.  If we think consoles will be able to do that within the next 2 years (as some on this thread think) then I will be very happy indeed.  I just can't see it personally.

[Jason S. Global Moderator]

3 hours ago, glen8 said:

by 4k I mean playing games at 4096 x 2160 resolution above 30fps min fps.  If we think consoles will be able to do that within the next 2 years (as some on this thread think) then I will be very happy indeed.  I just can't see it personally.

agreed. zero chance of this happening. if a successor, the PS5, comes out in 6yrs then we might see UHD gaming in 2022. i still dont see that happening, but call me a pessimist!

 

back in 2006 the industry was poised for 720p gaming. yes, there were a few games on the PS3 that could handle 1080p; however, it took until 2013 to see sustainable 1080p gaming at 30fps. That's 7yrs to push 1,152,000 more pixels (720p vs 1080p). Going from 1080p to 4k means a 4x push of pixels - 6,220,800 more pixels. Can the industry handle that by 2020-2022? im not so sure...

[+Asmodai MVC]

16 hours ago, Audioboxer said:

Not at all, you've misunderstood me. I was saying a Neo is going to be slightly closer to PC VR than a PS4, and it'll give Sony's VR slightly longer legs till the PS5 comes out. PC will forever be the best for VR.

If they release a new PS4 next year when AMD Vega comes out it will be slightly closer than if they don't too, I guess they should to that then too.  If each time they shrunk the PS3 chip they upped the clock it would have made it closer to PC performance as well.  Each time nVidia came out with a new GPU line they could have upped the GPU of the PS3 (which was basically a GeForce 7800 GTX).  They didn't do those things because when you bought a PlayStation you were assured that the first console would play games the same as the last one within that console generation.  That "fixed platform" is one of the major benefits of console gaming.  PS4k appears to be about to break that assurance to consumers.

 

 

16 hours ago, Audioboxer said:

 

Someone who buys a PS3 a year before a PS4 gets put aside by hardware improvements as well ~ The reality of not buying day 1 is inching ever closer to something new coming out when you do buy. The point is if you only judge your enjoyment and ability to play games on what comes next, then you'll never be able to live in the moment and enjoy what you have now.

This is apples to oranges.  I'm talking about WITHIN A CONSOLE generation.  A PS3 and a PS4 are two different things, I can't believe you'd even seriously try to make that argument.  If you got to the store to buy a disc a PS3 game is clearly different from a PS4 game.    If the PS4k was the PS5 then it would make sense that it has better specs.  The PS4k will play the SAME DISCS in the store as the PS4 though but it will play those games differently (according to rumors, I assume we'll find out for sure next week.)  According to rumor developers are expressly forbidden by Sony to release PS4k-ONLY games.  Instead they get better versions (higher resolution and/or higher framerate) of the same games PS4 (pre-Neo) owners.  That DOES make pre-Neo PS4 owners second class citizens within the PS4 community.  In the past Sony has gone out of their way to prevent doing this kind of segregation of experience, never in the history of PlayStation could two people buy the same PS game disc and get two different experiences (resolution, frame rate, etc.) on the same generation console even if they were built 10 years apart.

 

16 hours ago, Audioboxer said:

This bridges consoles closer to the PC environment, but it's still nowhere near as fast paced as PC updates. 3 years isn't as bad as yearly hardware refreshes, let alone almost 6 monthly on PC.

Again a console is not a PC.  How fast paced PC updates are is irrelevant.  Not having to deal with the PCs rapid update pace is one of the major reasons for getting a console.  In the context of console games performance changes 3 years is incredibly fast.  It's NEVER happened in the history of the PlayStation brand.  I actually think it would be better (but not good) if they just release a PS5 now instead.  People (myself included) would still be upset that the PS4 generation was so short but at least you wouldn't be segmenting the community.  The PS5 would have it's own native games that took full advantage of the upgraded hardware and not be "held back" by having to make sure all it's games can run on launch PS4s as well.  It would still stink with that short of a PS4 generation but it would stink less than splitting the PS4 player base between the 4k haves and have nots.

 

16 hours ago, Audioboxer said:

Sadly for you and others alike it's something you're either going to have to prepare for, or ignore and wait it out for a PS5 (your PS4 isn't becoming defunct or incapable of playing the releases coming out in the next year(s)). Xbox is going to do something similar next year from what we've learned.

Sadly for Sony this means they're going to drive away customers.  In my case I was a day 1 buy for PSVR until I realized that my launch console would offer a lesser experience than what others will get from the $400+ piece of hardware.  If that turns out to be the case then they've lost my business and I'm sure I'm not alone in that.  I don't know how many people will feel similarly, but neither do you, and neither does anyone else, I guess we'll fine out when the sales occur.  PSVR was already going to be a fairly expensive console add-on and it's unclear if it would take off or not when people thought the 40+ million existing users would have the best experience possible for that device.  Now with them getting a lesser experience than people who buy a newer $400+ console I can't help but think that's going to hurt PSVRs chances.

 

16 hours ago, Audioboxer said:

Unless consoles go modular in which case they are pretty much a PC, they'll probably begin faster generations going forward as our ability to shrink chips and fit ever more powerful hardware inside small enclosed cases improves. In all fairness though the last 12~18 months has really accelerated that. Remember the components for the PS4 and XB1 were tied up prior to launch during R&D. Now we have the ability to put pretty beastly AMD graphics chips in small cases with little airflow.

This isn't true at all.  Our ability to shrink chips and fit ever more powerful hardware inside small enclosed cases is SLOWING DOWN.  AMD has been stuck on the 28nm process for a very long time in terms of prior process lifecycles.  Intel is having to stop it's tick-tock cycle and release 3 cycles worth of processors on the 14nm process because they can't get the 10nm process out at the same pace they've been able to do historically.

 

The PS3 shrunk from 90nm to 65nm to 45nm/40nm (CPU/GPU) during it's life just as the PS4 is shrinking from 28nm to 14nm now. The difference again, as I stated above, is Sony was careful to ensure that the last 45/40nm PS3 CPU/GPU played PS3 games at the same performance as the first 90nm PS3.  Again they could have easily increased the clock with each of those shrinks or moved to the more current nVidia GPU tech but they didn't because consoles are a FIXED platform and it's important to ensure that within a single generation the games play the same from the first to the last console.  The rumored PS4k is going to break that pact with consumers and if they start bringing in new hardware that you have to upgrade even faster to get the best experience out of the same disc then they decrease the appeal of consoles and people may as well just buy PCs.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Sorry I just can't take "second class citizens" seriously. It's in the vein of PC master race. When used as a joke it's funny, when used seriously it screams entitlement mentality.

 

People need to grow up and realise you aren't given some right to have the best and shiniest for X amount of years just because it may have worked that way in the past. 3 years is still a decent chunk of time, and with no exclusive games promised go wild continuing to enjoy Horizon on your current PS4. I won't be buying a Neo day 1 as I'm buying PSVR and both will probably release around the same time.

 

If it's really that important to you how do you think XB1 fans survive with the PS4 trouncing it on resolution? How did the PS3 survive against the 360 last gen? Answer is not enough people give a damn as long as their games work and they can have fun.

 

I'm cautious but I fully believe Neo will sell fine, PS4 will continue to sell fine at a cheaper price and PSVR is the real wildcard. It's going to sell out initially with its price point, no questions, but it's how long can it remain relevant. This is why I see PS Neo having a place to appease that small hardcore minority who do give a damn about graphics and want something nearer the PC than the original PS4s performance on the same VR title in a year's time.

 

If I'm wrong, and Sony are, we will all eat crow. I'm not going to go around screaming second class citizen though as that is just childish in the world of consumer electronics.

[+Asmodai MVC]

2 hours ago, Audioboxer said:

Sorry I just can't take "second class citizens" seriously. It's in the vein of PC master race. When used as a joke it's funny, when used seriously it screams entitlement mentality.

Sorry I just can't take this seriously.  It's screams of "It doesn't matter to me so it shouldn't to anyone else."

 

It's a fact that if the rumors are true and the PS4k does indeed perform better on the same games and the launch PS4 that is going to produce two different experiences for the same games depending on which console you happen to own.  If you prefer not to call that "first class" and "second class" for the better and worse performing groups then use whatever term you like it doesn't change that fact.  It's also a fact that it would be the first time in the history a PlayStation that this type of segmentation has occurred and it's a fact that in the past Sony has gone out of their way to prevent it from happening. (by NOT raising the clock of the CPU when the process shrunk, not upgrading to more current GPU tech when the console hardware was revised, etc.)  No doubt there are people, like you apparently, who couldn't care less.  No doubt I'm not the only one who DOES care.  As such there is no doubt going to be people upset by this change that is going to translate to lost sales for Sony.  How many lost sales no one can say.  Maybe it will be an insignificant number, maybe it will be a huge one, there is no way for either of us to know that.

 

 

2 hours ago, Audioboxer said:

People need to grow up and realise you aren't given some right to have the best and shiniest for X amount of years just because it may have worked that way in the past.

So people who don't agree with you need to "grow up"?  Maybe you should "grow up" and realize that people with different opinions from yours aren't automatically wrong.

Sony is going to lose some sales beause of this segregation of the PS4 console generation, again we have no idea to what degree and maybe it will be completely offset by additional people attracted by the higher specs of the PS4k and maybe it won't.

 

2 hours ago, Audioboxer said:

3 years is still a decent chunk of time

Compared to what?  PCs? It's not a decent chunk of time in console lifecycle terms.  Or do we just go by what Audioboxer says is a decent amount of time.

 

 

2 hours ago, Audioboxer said:

If it's really that important to you how do you think XB1 fans survive with the PS4 trouncing it on resolution? How did the PS3 survive against the 360 last gen? Answer is not enough people give a damn as long as their games work and they can have fun.

Again Apples to Oranges.  This argument doesn't even make sense.  Saying the first PS4 should perform the same as the last PS4, just like the first and last PS3, PS2, PS1 did is not at all similar to saying the Xbox One should perform like a PS4 or the 360 should perform like the PS3.

 

[hdca18]

BOO! Another PS4 way too soon IMO. VR coming out in OCT and the PS4 Neo? Need 3 jobs to keep up with this. Dang

[George P Global Moderator]

I'm not going to get into an argument over this but I'll drop my opinion on the subject.   First, this move, this early, if true, to me says that it's a move needed to boost/help the PSVR work, I think it's clear that the current PS4 just can't do VR or do it well enough with the limited hardware ability it has.  This has forced Sonys hand and now they're pushing out a newer hardware version sooner than they would have otherwise done.  No need to release a new PS4 so soon with the lead in sales they have and the advantage of the XB1 they have.   The only logical thing left is that it's needed for PSVR, which begs the question, if you want to use PSVR does that mean now that you'll also have to buy the VR headset AND the Neo to?    If so that's a double kick to the wallet and I wonder just how many people will bother to spend so much yet again just for VR.

 

Second part here is this argument over res, performance and supporting two systems.   I thought for 2-3 years now the argument has been that gamers want the best looking game they can get and will go with the best hardware/console version they can get.   So for PS fans that's been the PS4 argument, it's got the better looking games so everyone is getting the PS4 over the XB1.  Ok, I'll go with that, nothing wrong with it.   But are these same fans now going to drop that way of thinking and just say, well, I can play the same game on my current PS4 so it doesn't matter if it doesn't look as good as it can/does on the Neo?   If so, then all I can do is facepalm and laugh, seriously guys, if you're going to go with that stance then it's just silly.

 

Anyways, we'll know soon, if the PS4 Neo is true then at least I'm glad I held off and didn't buy a PS4 this year like I was thinking about doing.  It also helps that more and more games are coming out on the PC as well, saves me some money in the process.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

52 minutes ago, Asmodai said:

Sorry I just can't take this seriously.  It's screams of "It doesn't matter to me so it shouldn't to anyone else."

 

It's a fact that if the rumors are true and the PS4k does indeed perform better on the same games and the launch PS4 that is going to produce two different experiences for the same games depending on which console you happen to own.  If you prefer not to call that "first class" and "second class" for the better and worse performing groups then use whatever term you like it doesn't change that fact.  It's also a fact that it would be the first time in the history a PlayStation that this type of segmentation has occurred and it's a fact that in the past Sony has gone out of their way to prevent it from happening. (by NOT raising the clock of the CPU when the process shrunk, not upgrading to more current GPU tech when the console hardware was revised, etc.)  No doubt there are people, like you apparently, who couldn't care less.  No doubt I'm not the only one who DOES care.  As such there is no doubt going to be people upset by this change that is going to translate to lost sales for Sony.  How many lost sales no one can say.  Maybe it will be an insignificant number, maybe it will be a huge one, there is no way for either of us to know that.

 

 

So people who don't agree with you need to "grow up"?  Maybe you should "grow up" and realize that people with different opinions from yours aren't automatically wrong.

Sony is going to lose some sales beause of this segregation of the PS4 console generation, again we have no idea to what degree and maybe it will be completely offset by additional people attracted by the higher specs of the PS4k and maybe it won't.

 

Compared to what?  PCs? It's not a decent chunk of time in console lifecycle terms.  Or do we just go by what Audioboxer says is a decent amount of time.

 

 

Again Apples to Oranges.  This argument doesn't even make sense.  Saying the first PS4 should perform the same as the last PS4, just like the first and last PS3, PS2, PS1 did is not at all similar to saying the Xbox One should perform like a PS4 or the 360 should perform like the PS3.

 

I'll agree to disagree then. I don't necessarily think you are wrong, I just think to feel such strong entitlement is strange in the tech industry from a £300~ purchase. I get that console cycles tend to be 5 years, but this isn't stopping God of War 4, The Last of Us 2, The Last Guardian and whatever other Sony exclusives come out in the next 2 years from working for you. Unlike a generational gap that can end up with exclusives you have to buy a new system for. This isn't ending the current cycle, it's not a PS5. If you care that much about graphics then one would say that unhappiness should just look to your wallet to be prepared to pay more for prettier things. Sony can't make PS4 games look any more prettier via magic, tech specs change that (other than modest leaps seen as a generation slogs on).

 

As for the sales numbers, there is a way to know, how well this sells when it comes out and how well the PS4 continues to sell once it's price is slashed. Not sure how you can lose sales, where is everyone suddenly going? To Xbox? Well, they'll be doing this next year and the XB1 is already weaker than the PS4. To PC? Well, good luck there, you'll have a heart attack at how many people play prettier than you day 1 (if your budget is £300), let alone day 60 (something hardware wise new is out already).

 

24 minutes ago, George P said:

I'm not going to get into an argument over this but I'll drop my opinion on the subject.   First, this move, this early, if true, to me says that it's a move needed to boost/help the PSVR work, I think it's clear that the current PS4 just can't do VR or do it well enough with the limited hardware ability it has.  This has forced Sonys hand and now they're pushing out a newer hardware version sooner than they would have otherwise done.  No need to release a new PS4 so soon with the lead in sales they have and the advantage of the XB1 they have.   The only logical thing left is that it's needed for PSVR, which begs the question, if you want to use PSVR does that mean now that you'll also have to buy the VR headset AND the Neo to?    If so that's a double kick to the wallet and I wonder just how many people will bother to spend so much yet again just for VR.

 

Second part here is this argument over res, performance and supporting two systems.   I thought for 2-3 years now the argument has been that gamers want the best looking game they can get and will go with the best hardware/console version they can get.   So for PS fans that's been the PS4 argument, it's got the better looking games so everyone is getting the PS4 over the XB1.  Ok, I'll go with that, nothing wrong with it.   But are these same fans now going to drop that way of thinking and just say, well, I can play the same game on my current PS4 so it doesn't matter if it doesn't look as good as it can/does on the Neo?   If so, then all I can do is facepalm and laugh, seriously guys, if you're going to go with that stance then it's just silly.

 

Anyways, we'll know soon, if the PS4 Neo is true then at least I'm glad I held off and didn't buy a PS4 this year like I was thinking about doing.  It also helps that more and more games are coming out on the PC as well, saves me some money in the process.

Yeah, people do, which is why Sony gamers will buy a PS Neo.

 

I'll buy a PS Neo if it means more 1080/60. How soon I buy it is just a question of how much it is going to cost and when it is releasing. I have PSVR pre-ordered and that is setting me back £349.99.

 

As for VR, everything demoed to now is on PS4s. You won't have to buy a Neo for VR, you'll simply get higher graphical fidelity. Not necessarily framerate, as it has to be 60FPS just now on the PS4. Most likely just 60FPS on Neo along with better textures, particles, lighting and so forth. Or maybe 90/120FPS natively, without having to rely on the 60FPS to 120FPS conversation the VR headset can do.

[George P Global Moderator]

3 minutes ago, Audioboxer said:

I'll agree to disagree then. I don't necessarily think you are wrong, I just think to feel such strong entitlement is strange in the tech industry from a £300~ purchase. I get that console cycles tend to be 5 years, but this isn't stopping God of War 4, The Last of Us 2, The Last Guardian and whatever other Sony exclusives come out in the next 2 years. Unlike a generational gap that can end up with exclusives you have to buy a new system for.

 

As for the sales numbers, there is a way to know, how well this sells when it comes out and how well the PS4 continues to sell once it's price is slashed.

 

Yeah, people do, which is why Sony gamers will buy a PS Neo.

 

I'll buy a PS Neo if it means more 1080/60. How soon I buy it is just a question of how much it is going to cost and when it is releasing. I have PSVR pre-ordered and that is setting me back £349.99.

 

As for VR, everything demoed to now is on PS4s. You won't have to buy a Neo for VR, you'll simply get a higher graphical fidelity. Not necessarily framerate, as it has to be 60FPS just now on the PS4. Most likely just 60FPS on Neo along with better textures, particles, lighting and so forth.

That's just a lot of money to spend for the premium VR experience, I'm still not into VR, I don't think I'll ever be because I see it as limiting in nature.  And I don't think VR 3rd person games, if they do them, gain anything from it.   VR is, in my mind, a pure first person type experience and one that you'd have to be able to full move around in to get the most out of.  If they're just sit down experiences well, I'll just stick to my TV for now.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

1 minute ago, George P said:

That's just a lot of money to spend for the premium VR experience, I'm still not into VR, I don't think I'll ever be because I see it as limiting in nature.  And I don't think VR 3rd person games, if they do them, gain anything from it.   VR is, in my mind, a pure first person type experience and one that you'd have to be able to full move around in to get the most out of.  If they're just sit down experiences well, I'll just stick to my TV for now.

Sure, and on PC? Be prepared to pay a lot as well, more than Sony. Why does anyone expect VR to be cheap? It's new tech.

 

If you can't afford to join in on VR either don't buy at all, or enjoy what you can afford via the PS4 you already own.

[George P Global Moderator]

Just now, Audioboxer said:

Sure, and on PC? Be prepared to pay a lot as well. Why does anyone expect VR to be cheap? It's new tech.

 

If you can't afford to join in on VR either don't buy at all, or enjoy what you can afford via the PS4 you already own.

No one expects it to be cheap, but price is always a factor in the success of these things, specially in the console space.  PC gamers are fine will paying crazy prices on things to game better, like that 1k Titan X, which just sounds silly to me, maybe I'm not hardcore enough?   If you have to pay that 350 or so for the VR and another, 400 at best for the neo to get the best VR version, I don't know how much success you'll have, at least to start.