It's not as simple as you're stating. UWP has already demonstrated that there's a lot more to do than a simple config file. This config file situation for multiplatform games is merely a starting point. From there specific optimizations have to be made to ensure consistent performance, sometimes down to a scene by scene basis.  Remove some objects here, bit less grass there, specific draw distance adjustments etc.
On PC you need a healthy overhead or turn some settings down yourself in taxing scenes, on consoles this tweaking is done for you which is time consuming. For 2 hardware specs all that fine tuning doubles. That likely leads to a PC like situation for the NEO, as in leave a healthy overhead to get over the performance bumps, thus only optimizing the base version.


And that is all about multiplatform games made with a scalable PC engine. Console exclusives go a lot deeper into optimizations and customizing game engines, thus a lot more work for 2 hardware specs. For example specific code adjustments to smartly cut some corners, like KZ SF and QB reprojected 1080p modes.

Anyway that all supports what I was trying to get at. Instead of going the extra mile to cram as much as possible into the ps4 version, there is now an alternative. Still show off the best in game graphics, yet some stuff won't quite make it into the ps4 version. Or drop the resolution for the base version. With the extra needed time to test for a second hardware spec, it's only more tempting to put less effort into the best optimized base version, nevermind doing all that work for 2 versions and still sell it to the same userbase.

Besided this is not the same as the PC situation
The CPU binary is identical, while three GPU binaries (shared, PS4-specific and Neo-specific)
Different neo specific GPU code is a bit more than a few settings in a config file.

Still not seeing a benifit for games. PS4 and Xb one don't need awesomeness upgrades. Wii U clearly does, but that's because it started out with gen 7.5 hardware.

If I'm willing to spend $400 every 6 years then the reason for that is because I want to experience that generational leap. I'm not interested in 30% more power. I'm interested in 100%-200% more power. PS3 had 512MB RAM, PS4 has 8GB. That's a 1500% increase, that's what I want when I go to spend my $400. I'm not interested in spending $200 twice to get 2 rounds of minor improvements two years after the fact and be constantly gaming on low tier hardware with gimped versions of games within the same console eco-system.  

Which is how it should be if you prefer performance in your games over visual gimmicks that barely add anything to the game.

You shouldn't think that "optimization" is a magic spell that suddenly makes 60 fps out of 30. There are extreme hardware limitations and optimization can only do so much. A 60 fps uncharted is simply impossible with the same level of visual fidelity. Unless they invent a completely new way to render games which no one has thought of before. But then we get into the realm of diminishing returns.

No developer on this planet wants to optimize. They have to because they don't want to compromise and they don't have any choice. Optimizing is a chore and can even lead to even more bugs. Everyone is talking about the burden of developing for 2 platforms. I think the burden of having to basically work magic to fit a game on a very constrained platform is an even bigger burden that costs time, money and effort for ultimately only very small gains.

I don't know, you seem to be making the right points yet at the same time arriving at some strange conclusions. 

1. UWP is nothing compared to PS BSD. If nothing else, there is a ton of legacy code that makes any kinda optimization or cross compatibility a nightmare. 

2. This testing for an extra hardware spec is nowhere near as big as u make it sound. Especially when Said hardware spec will run the games in the exact same way that a PS4b will run them unless the specific config setup for it is on file. And you should have seen that by looking at the last thing you said. 

3. Shared... what both machines will have and thus be able to do. PS4 specific.... what the PS4 can do based on what it exclusively has. And Neo specific... what the extra muscle allows. Now pls remember that on a Neo, they are at the very least already working with something that works. PS4 build. It's not about getting something to work. it's about adding more to something that already works. there are simply too many similarities between the two consoels to be having anywhere near the kinda issues you are suggesting they may have. 

I get that your fear stems from your belief (which granted is founded) that devs will just not put in the required effort since there is another SKU that will make short work of whatever problems the are having with the base model. But what I'm saying is that as long as their is an XB1 version, then rest assured there will be a good PS4 version. And if there isn't an XB1 version, then the dev team has only two PS4 skus to navigate. which in truth aren't event that much different from eachother. 

So what I think you're saying is that NEO is a good thing as it gives some overhead to developers, or an out basically to keep the fancy graphics on the NEO and spend less effort optimizing the base version by cutting or toning down some elements instead. And that way developers can compensate for or gain back the time from the additional testing and QA. Basically the time for console type optimization is done and PC overhead will be it for the future.

Btw these limitations of consoles have led to new ways to render games which no one had thought of before.
Optimizing is actually very rewarding to do, but maybe I'm an exception :) (Testing on different machines sucks)

Devs will still want to put in the required effort, yet time constraints, extra verification steps, multiple gpu binaries, they simply won't have the time on the same budget to put in the same effort as before. XB1 version and PS4 version are 2 different user bases, extra profit, ps4 + neo, same user base, no extra profit.

Btw it doesn't matter that the hardware is supposed to run the code exactly the same. It still needs to be verified. Software development doesn't work on assumptions and good faith. I've had plenty experience chasing hard to reproduce bugs on specific hardware configurations, same type processor, slightly different clockspeed, threads play slightly differently together while relying on each other and you have an opportunity for a fatal crash.


Coding for consoles and coding for PC are 2 completely different philosophies. Or were, until consoles converged to become PCs. I guess the days are over of those late gen games no one thought possible. As well as the excitement of a generational leap. Is it really worth paying $400 again for minor upgrades to get smooth running games, while likely in 3 years the games on that new machine will be the ones struggling when the next iteration appears. I moved to consoles to get away from that 'is it time to upgrade again' question when new games start to drop too many frames.

You could play megadrive games on a 32X

I wonder if the clock speed is set to ps4 specs if the game runs in ps4 mode, the same as on N3DS.
Letting an optimized console game run with different clock speeds for CPU and GPU requires more testing and can have unexpected side effects. A lot depends on timing, you can't suddenly have some tasks finishing faster than others. Suggesting that it needs a patch seems to confirm that.
(And you can hack the n3ds to unlock the faster cpu speed for older games at your own risk)

Looking through the comments on Eurogamer, NEO has already accomplished 1 thing, succesfully split the usebase.