Will you upgrade to a PlayStation 4.5 if it's released?

Venom

Captain Chaos wrote: »

It's that same thing basically. Throw in a €400 gfx card into your PC but then your CPU could end up being a bottle neck.

A new €400 console, either way you will be playing games with better performance than you were before on either platform.

Very few PC games require much in the way of CPU power, it's all GPU based unless your talking VR gaming.

Captain Chaos

Venom wrote: »

Very few PC games require much in the way of CPU power, it's all GPU based unless your talking VR gaming.

True enough, I still have a Core i5 I bought 5 years ago and it stacks up very well against even the latest generation of i5s.

Its the next range of GPUs soon to be released by Nvidia and AMD that will really change things up.

AMD have some new APUs coming online that would be great inside the next gen consoles but they are too late for the refresh consoles.

heebusjeebus

Common sense video from Digital Foundry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ls2HO9eNzRA

CiDeRmAn

Captain Chaos wrote: »

It's that same thing basically. Throw in a €400 gfx card into your PC but then your CPU could end up being a bottle neck.

A new €400 console, either way you will be playing games with better performance than you were before on either platform.

€400 for an incremental improvement in PS4 performance or I'd probably get a not so cutting edge PC but one that'll play everything I want, and use my consoles for everything else.

Myrddin

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

€400 for an incremental improvement in PS4 performance

Again though, the rumours suggest twice the GPU power of the current model, and a potential CPU upgrade. If true, that'd be more than what I'd consider an incremental upgrade. For all intents & purposes, it'd probably be closer to the PS5 than it would be the PS4.

or I'd probably get a not so cutting edge PC but one that'll play everything I want, and use my consoles for everything else.

can't say I'd be too enthused about a €400 gaming pc, unless you were buying used then you'd eat through €400 very quickly considering what's needed (expensive gpu, cpu, ram, ssd, hdd, etc). I really don't think you can create a VR ready PC for €400?

johnny_ultimate

Myrddin wrote: »

I really don't think you can create a VR ready PC for €400?

That would basically get you the minimum recommended graphics card on its own, and maybe a cheap CPU heat sink with the change :pac:

You're easily looking at the guts of a grand to build a VR ready PC from scratch.

murphyebass

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

That would basically get you the minimum recommended graphics card on its own, and maybe a cheap CPU heat sink with the change :pac:

You're easily looking at the guts of a grand to build a VR ready PC from scratch.

The way I see it isn't necessarily about VR. If I'm honest VR really doesn't interest me. I think it'll be a fad or at the least a Kinect like gimmick selling ok initially and then people will realise they still prefer a telly and controller.

My reasoning is more so if I'm going to have to upgrade my console every couple of years at this stage of my life I'd prefer to invest in a PC and then upgrade as I see fit to be honest and I don't think I'm alone in that thinking.

Don't get me wrong I get that this wouldn't be for everyone as it would involve a bigger initial outlay, some level of PC building and maintanence ability, some will still like the plug and play'ness of a console and of course some people have friends on consoles so won't want to be left out. I don't. :-(

Myrddin

murphyebass wrote: »

The way I see it isn't necessarily about VR. If I'm honest VR really doesn't interest me. I think it'll be a fad or at the least a Kinect like gimmick selling ok initially and then people will realise they still prefer a telly and controller.

I believe this would-be PS4K is really all about VR, & if VR doesn't appeal to you, then I'd largely agree with your thoughts on it. The PS4 should more than suffice for the next few years console wise in that case. However, having tried VR, let me assure you it cannot be compared to Kinect, or any other gimmicky control system we've seen so far. VR, when done correctly, is jaw droppingly good...and offers so much in the way of possibilities. Kinect & co only offered different ways of doing what a joypad could already do...VR isn't like that, at all. I agree it'll be niche for a good while, & I don't think anything can ever really replace a telly & joypad, but for a different experience, VR offers so much.

murphyebass

Myrddin wrote: »

I believe this would-be PS4K is really all about VR, & if VR doesn't appeal to you, then I'd largely agree with your thoughts on it. The PS4 should more than suffice for the next few years console wise in that case. However, having tried VR, let me assure you it cannot be compared to Kinect, or any other gimmicky control system we've seen so far. VR, when done correctly, is jaw droppingly good...and offers so much in the way of possibilities. Kinect & co only offered different ways of doing what a joypad could already do...VR isn't like that, at all. I agree it'll be niche for a good while, & I don't think anything can ever really replace a telly & joypad, but for a different experience, VR offers so much.

That last line about a "different experience" imo is where the problem lies with this kind of device.

Maybe it's the cynic in me but it absolutely screams a new form of motion control which will grab people's attention short term but long term will ultimately fail commercially.

Now I'll reverse slightly here and admit I haven't used VR of any kind yet and I'm sure the immersion is amazing. I can picture the likes of survival horror for example being very cool.

But that being said how do you bring this to market to replace or compliment the hardware that consumers / gamers are used to ie physical controller especially after the mess of motion controls.

And if there is a big demand for it how do you price is and keep it commercially viable as newish tech like this isn't cheap in the first place.

Lastly I bet if get serious motion sickness from it. Lol

Myrddin

murphyebass wrote: »

That last line about a "different experience" imo is where the problem lies with this kind of device.

Maybe it's the cynic in me but it absolutely screams a new form of motion control which will grab people's attention short term but long term will ultimately fail commercially.

When I say different, I mean this is something that a tv & a joypad cannot offer you, unlike Kinect, Move, etc...which are all just different forms of traditional joypads. VR is different, in a "holy f**k, this is like nothing I ever imagined" way.

Now I'll reverse slightly here and admit I haven't used VR of any kind yet and I'm sure the immersion is amazing. I can picture the likes of survival horror for example being very cool.

Very cool is an understatement. When I first tried the Rift (the DK1, which was the first prototype) I was blown away, & instantly thought "the future is now!" It will never replace a TV & joypad, but will happily live alongside. When you try VR, & you will try it, I'd be very surprised if it didn't knock your socks off.

But that being said how do you bring this to market to replace or compliment the hardware that consumers / gamers are used to ie physical controller especially after the mess of motion controls.

It won't replace physical controllers, the Rift comes with an Xbox One controller, the PSVR can use the DS4, etc. Seriously, people need to stop equating this with motion controls, they're nothing alike

And if there is a big demand for it how do you price is and keep it commercially viable as newish tech like this isn't cheap in the first place.

The price will come down as time passes, and the tech matures. I'd imagine after a few generations, the experience will be even better than it is today, & be more affordable too.

Lastly I bet if get serious motion sickness from it. Lol

That actually can be an issue. A high frame rate is needed, and a correctly calibrated headset (calibrated to your self) helps a lot too.

CiDeRmAn

I like the way VR is shaping up but it does seem limited to a specific type of hand right now, first person titles.
I just feel that this is all happening about three years too early.
And having been an early adopter in the past, wonder if people that buy into it now, with the PS4.5 and VR rig, must be about €600 spent there including your existing console traded in, will they get value for money?

Lord Spence

I think the whole thing is a disgrace, we buy consoles because we don't want the hassle or cost of having to constantly upgrade a PC. So if a game comes out will it come out for both PS4 and PS4.5? will my already pre-ordered PSVR now require me to upgrade my current PS4 to get what was promised in term of quality and spec for the VR unit...

Sony are taking a huge risk! and if they try and rip off their loayal fans who have been with the PS4 since launch I hope it backfires!

TerrorFirmer

It's a joke and I believe it stems from massively under-powered release consoles that are already struggling with some games at 1080p.

The XB1 and PS4 should be flexing their muscles at this point of the generations lifespan, but instead we have many AAA games coming out with medicore visuals and ropey framerates.

It was fairly obvious straight away that they weren't going to last the way the 360 and PS3 did for the best part of a decade.

I played my 360 primary from 2005 until 2012, and it held up very well throughout that timeframe. Got my XB1 in late 2013 and here we are in early 2016 and I'm incredibly disappointed at how incapable it is.

Captain Chaos

Nature of the beast really. If MS and Sony released €600 consoles in 2013 there would have been uproar but they would not need a hardware refresh now. Combination of making a price point and a tech jump at the same time that there hadn't been one in years.

Unearthly

Not sure if VR will become a fad. I think there is huge potential with it. When mobiles first came out did you think it would become something that could nearly do all computer related things?

The wow factor between modern graphics to a few years ago is becoming less and less so VR could be the future

CiDeRmAn

Well, I think the leap from mobile to smart phones was far more gradual than people think, going from analogue to gsm to the early smart phones from Nokia, Sony Ericsson and Samsung, later Samsung and their pioneering work, along with Palm, in the touch screen sphere and then on into the realm of the ubiquitous Android and iOS platforms.
Similarly, consoles went from dedicated, non processor lumps that played Pong, to cart based, disks, on to multimedia and Internet connected before we find ourselves with the connected entertainment hub we see today.

But VR seems to have made that jump, in the consumer viable sense at least.
I think the perfect storm of cheap decent displays and cheap CPU/GPU grunt has produced an experience that doesn't have to compromise the way that systems did in the past, and techniques to avoid nausea inducing features like lag have been eliminated making it a far easier sell.

jimmytwotimes 2013

https://youtu.be/kiF-LYQ7pc8

PlayStation 4.5 AKA PlayStation 4K AKA PlayStation Neo

Captain Chaos

As expected, future PS4 games from September/ October will have 2 modes to cater for each PS4 model. Basically very basic PC graphics options.

From Giant Bomb
"report also states that Sony will require that every PS4 game from October 2016 onwards will have to ship with a ‘Base Mode’ and a ‘Neo Mode’, so as to work on both original and updated consoles.

The NEO will reportedly be able to output a 4K image, though developers will not be required to make their games 4K native."

New reported specs below. No way will it be able to 4k native anyway. May start to see more games running 1080p native at 60fps though.

"the new console has received the internal codename ‘NEO’ and will feature a CPU with 8 Jaguar Cores at 2.1 GHz (compared to the original PS4’s 1.6 GHz), an improved GPU (AMD GCN, 36 CUs at 911 MHz compared the original’s 18 CUs at 800 MHz) and improved RAM (8 GB GDDR5, 218 GB/s compared to the original’s 176 GB/s)."

murphyebass

Boooooooooourns to the Neo!!!






.....must not buy.

In all seriousness though won't be for me.

Two things that worry me:
1. Online play. Hopefully this isn't affected. It really shouldn't be but it wouldn't surprise me if its affected.
2. Most importantly is that it doesn't go the way of the "new 3DS" with games that require the higher specs. That'd be a **** off Sony moment for me right there

Will be really interesting to see what the take up of it will be all the same.

I definately think it'll see a swing toward PC machines.

Captain Chaos

murphyebass wrote: »

2. Most importantly is that it doesn't go the way of the "new 3DS" with games that require the higher specs. That'd be a **** off Sony moment for me right there
.

That's a non issue, all games released from October must have a Standard and Neo mode if it's built to take advantage of the Neo's hardware.

No one is being left behind. It's like playing GTAV on a PS3 vs the PS4 version. One looks alot better but it's the same game.

Mr Bloat

Captain Chaos wrote: »

That's a non issue, all games released from October must have a Standard and Neo mode if it's built to take advantage of the Neo's hardware.

No one is being left behind. It's like playing GTAV on a PS3 vs the PS4 version. One looks alot better but it's the same game.

How long will this directive that developers need to have a Neo and Base mode of the game last though, that is not being mentioned at all. Sony marketing are going to great pains to assure us that we won't be left behind but at some stage it is bound to happen. How long will Sony force devs to produce two copies of a game, a year? Two? Four? How will this impact the price of games, if studios need to allocate staff to different versions?

I bought a PS4 around 18 months ago and like most people, I bought it on the (unwritten but assumed) understanding that the life of the console would be 8ish years and nothing better would be released in that time. Fair enough, there might be a Slim version released in that time but not a beefier console. If I thought that there would be a full hardware refresh (essentially a new console) within two years of my purchase, I would have held off buying one. I certainly wouldn't have expected to pay full retail price for it, no more than I would have paid full retail price for a PS3 two years before the PS4 launched.

MilesMorales1

In like Flynn, just give me dat pre order.

Varik

Disappointed about them sticking with GCN. Won't likely be buying it as I'll wait on VR and will likely be upgrading my GPU around Summer.

Mr Bloat wrote: »

How long will this directive that developers need to have a Neo and Base mode of the game last though, that is not being mentioned at all. Sony marketing are going to great pains to assure us that we won't be left behind but at some stage it is bound to happen. How long will Sony force devs to produce two copies of a game, a year? Two? Four? How will this impact the price of games, if studios need to allocate staff to different versions?

As long as Sony want it to, not really 2 versions either no more than a PC version having ∞ versions for each combination of settings.

The 360 had similar requirements for the HDD for most of if not all it's life.

Captain Chaos wrote: »

No one is being left behind. It's like playing GTAV on a PS3 vs the PS4 version. One looks alot better but it's the same game.

Pretty sure they've stopped updating the PS3/360 version now, and it hasn't gotten the last load of DLC/updates.

CiDeRmAn

I can't help but think this will hurt the brand, unless most people will be ignorant to the difference and buy a PS4 next year without knowing there's a difference.
I would say it is a kick in the nethers to people who supported the console in its earlier iteration.
Why bother buying a Sony console in its first two years ever again?
Just wait and buy it a few years down the line, when the hardware is better and the decent games that were out over that period are cheap as chips.

Mr Bloat

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

I can't help but think this will hurt the brand, unless most people will be ignorant to the difference and buy a PS4 next year without knowing there's a difference.
I would say it is a kick in the nethers to people who supported the console in its earlier iteration.
Why bother buying a Sony console in its first two years ever again?
Just wait and buy it a few years down the line, when the hardware is better and the decent games that were out over that period are cheap as chips.

On that point, will all those that buy the Neo be complaining in a couple of years that the hardware is only a out a short while and the PS5 has been announced...

um7y1h83ge06nx

The more I think about this, and Microsoft's rumours, the more annoyed I get.

This could end up pushing relatively tech savvy gamers to PC gaming.

I buy a console to last me a good few years and there is no temptation for me to upgrade graphics cards etc. You know what you're getting.

If they start halving console generations that gaming PC begins to look more attractive.

Adamcp898

As someone who just bought a PS4 in December, this is a bit of a kick in the balls as, like others, you buy it assuming that it will last 5/6 years before a console with updated hardware will be released to surpass it.

From a wider standpoint, I find the half arsed way they're doing it to be just as perplexing. They mention forcing developers to have a "base" version and a "neo" version of all games from October, as well as the stipulations that frame rate can't be compromised to use more of the hardware improvements.

This upgrade with these stipulations is going to hurt Sony more than help them imo and the above will surely be the excuse used by developers when the inevitable complaints of "this game still doesn't look/run as well as I expected it to on the neo" meaning Sony will get the brunt of the bad press from every angle.

Sync

If you're buying a console just for graphics you need do some research as xbox/ps4 are as good as low end PC's.
The games will be the same it's completely pointless to upgrade if you already have a PS4.

Hope Microsoft don't do the same crap, maybe they already are and I just haven't read about it... it will definitely hurt the brand.

murphyebass

Mr Bloat wrote: »

How long will this directive that developers need to have a Neo and Base mode of the game last though, that is not being mentioned at all. Sony marketing are going to great pains to assure us that we won't be left behind but at some stage it is bound to happen. How long will Sony force devs to produce two copies of a game, a year? Two? Four? How will this impact the price of games, if studios need to allocate staff to different versions?

I bought a PS4 around 18 months ago and like most people, I bought it on the (unwritten but assumed) understanding that the life of the console would be 8ish years and nothing better would be released in that time. Fair enough, there might be a Slim version released in that time but not a beefier console. If I thought that there would be a full hardware refresh (essentially a new console) within two years of my purchase, I would have held off buying one. I certainly wouldn't have expected to pay full retail price for it, no more than I would have paid full retail price for a PS3 two years before the PS4 launched.

Completely agree with the first point here. I see nothing from Sony to definitively rule this out being done down the line. More power, sure why would they not take advantage of it?!

As for the 8 years, it's probably a bit optimistic these days but certainly 5 would have been assumed before another year maybe of cross over with a new system catering to both.

The whole thing imo is a bit of a slap in the face to customers. It does not sit well with me. Just seems underhanded for some reason. Maybe it's the 2nd point there about we assume consoles won't be upgraded based on the past. Just leaves a sour taste in the mouth.

Venom

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

I can't help but think this will hurt the brand, unless most people will be ignorant to the difference and buy a PS4 next year without knowing there's a difference.
I would say it is a kick in the nethers to people who supported the console in its earlier iteration.
Why bother buying a Sony console in its first two years ever again?
Just wait and buy it a few years down the line, when the hardware is better and the decent games that were out over that period are cheap as chips.

Agreed. I just can't see how this move won't really hurt Sony and Microsoft if they follow this route, when they launch there next gen consoles in a few years. The last thing a gaming tech company needs, is for potential customers to take a wait and see approach as it just feeds into the cycle of no console sales = no game development for the platform leading back to no games coming out = no console sales.

Adamcp898 wrote: »

As someone who just bought a PS4 in December, this is a bit of a kick in the balls as, like others, you buy it assuming that it will last 5/6 years before a console with updated hardware will be released to surpass it.

From a wider standpoint, I find the half arsed way they're doing it to be just as perplexing. They mention forcing developers to have a "base" version and a "neo" version of all games from October, as well as the stipulations that frame rate can't be compromised to use more of the hardware improvements.

This upgrade with these stipulations is going to hurt Sony more than help them imo and the above will surely be the excuse used by developers when the inevitable complaints of "this game still doesn't look/run as well as I expected it to on the neo" meaning Sony will get the brunt of the bad press from every angle.

This Base and Neo mode will only last until one of the big game developers tells Sony to get stuffed. It will only take the risk of Sony losing the likes of a CoD, Battlefield, Fifa or GTA level game on their platform for them to fold imho.