teigaga said:
potato_hamster said:
No. My post is why Sony isn't stupid enough to do what many people are assuming they will be. What is the reason behind the PS4K that has enhanced hardware specs for games? There is none. That's my point.
- If no one is expecting the PS4k to have exclusives than the extra processing power will not be supported by third parties. There is literally no incentive for them to do so. See the N64 expansion pak, the PSP spec improvements, and the new 3DS. In all of those cases the vast majority of games that were released after that point did not take advantage of the hardware in any way. And you probably shouldn't act as if the new 3DS was successful, since the vast majority (over 95% of games since release ) don't take advantage of the added performance, and outside of the release window, has done absolutely nothing to inccrease 3DS sales. In fact regular 3DS outsell the new 3DS 2 or 3 to 1 to this day. In fact they sold more 3DSs at $200, then they sold new 3DSs at $200 over the same time frame. It appears people just don't see the added value, and it's not hard to see why. There is literally no incentive for third parties to support consoles like this. The Divison isn't selling any more copies if it's running at 60 fps as opposed to 30 fps. Sure some might buy it on PS4 instead of X1, but that's all the same money to the developer. That's an awful lot of effort to put in for literally zero reward. It is 100% wishful thinking to hope third parties would throw money away investing in developing games for these added specs for no reward.
- Doing a die shrink inviolves optimizing the process for that partucilar APU. Developiong a new more powerful APU would require doing almost all of the work of that die shrink all over again. It's not that simple. It can take months of development to get acceptable yields. That's why when they develop a process of shrinking dies they don't just automatically start making all chips at that size. Also, you need to consider that a 4K APU would undoubtedly be more complex, use more power, and likely produce far more heat, and therefore, they may have to increase the die size, not decrease it, in order to produce it at acceptable yields.
- Yes when the PS3 came out, most people didn't have a 1080p TV, but most did have 720p HDTVs that would be a noticable improvement over the 480p output of the PS2. That's probably why most of the games at the time were optimized for 720p, and that's probably why 1080p only really became the objective with the PS4 and X1 and even then they're not really hitting the mark. Now you want to improve the specs and get them to render at 4 times the resolution they're struggling with now. Okay. How much do you want this PS4K to cost? Because if its going to play games at native 4K is going to cost a lot more than $400. The APU alone should cost at least that.
Besides, how would they be missing the 4K market at all if they make a PS4 slim with a 4K ready blu-ray player and HDMI port capable of playing 4K blu-rays, and maybe upscaling game video output to 4K, or maybe make some VR output a little smoother? Ohh right. They wouldn't. This is what Sony is probably making, in a slim for factor, with a higher profit margin, because that is what makes good business sense.
|
So a new PS4 with an upgraded GPU and more horse power to be utilised in games? Cool, pretty whats being discussed here so I don't understand your saltiness? Its also whats reported in the Kotaku report, the whole basis of this thread "Besides resolution, developers would have an opportunity to push more effects and other graphical tweaks to make their games look better, thanks to the new GPU."
HD TV's only managed 50% market penetration in 2009, so most people did not own a 720p in 2005. . More 4k Tvs were sold in the US in 2015 then HD Tvs were sold in 2005 and thats even a surprise to me, but thats what little bit of research gives you.
PS4k obviously isn't rendering games (AAA) natively at 4k, that hasn't been the discussion at any point.
You're really just reinforcing my point with your first paragraph. 3 systems over 3 different generations each incoporating a power upgrade of some kind. The same argument you're proposing would have applied to all of them includng Nintendo in 2014 but yet the N3DS was real. As for the systems success, it doesn't need to outsell the old 3DS to be considered a success, it needs to bring in additional revenue that they otherwise wouldn't have seen, sales that wouldn't have occured from a cheaper model. The N3DS done its job of slowing down Nintendo's hardware decline, the system missed its forcast by 1m so I'm not sure it fell too short from expectation performance wise.
As I said the extent to which the PS4k recieves support from 3rd Paries isn't that relevant to the discussion and is an unknown even if you think its a certainty. Sony are not unstoppable genius' and they've made tons of bad mistakes in the past, they managed to hand half the market to Microsoft when trasitioning to PS3, lost all of the money they made with PS2, produced a failure in the form of the Vita and the PS Move was more or less dead on arrival. If only you were there to assert that sony "isn't stupid enough" to make bad decisions.
But I'll leave it there and wait to see what the future reveals :)
|
You could output at 4K without modifying the APU in any way. You could add an additional processing unit between APU and the the video output processing unit to do the upscaling that would not affect the core functionality in any way. So while it's nice that you're trying to put words in my mouth and tear down a straw man you built, no, that's not what I'm talking about. The solution that I'm suggesting would have minimal impact on the cost of the console, achieve 4K video out, and most importantly not affect the core functionality of the console in any way. It would be similar to how the PS2 slim did video output in 480p instead of 480i. Magically all games were backwards compatible, and even more magically as a result, third party developers never had any additional resources at their disposal to drive up develoment costs.
So there's that.
So you're saying that HDTVs hit 50% market penetration in 2009, 3 years after the PS3, and Sony never bothered releasing a PS3.5 that would play all PS3 games at 1080p. But yet it totally, totally make sense to release a PS4K when 4K are expected to hit 50% market penetration 7 years after the release of the PS4. Yeah, you got me. That sounds like a slam dunk justification for getting on that 4K bandwagon in 2016. Of course.
Yes 3 systems over 3 generations tried the power upgrade. ALL OF THEM FAILED. You don't think the new 3DS is a failure? By what metric? Seriously. You say it slowed down the 3DS's hardware decline, but what evidence do you have of that. From the numbers I've seen indicated that Nintendo saw a sales increase 3-4 months after the new 3DS hardware release in each region... and then it went back to the exact same declining sales numbers overall. Seriously. The sales decline follows the exact same pattern with a minor spike in sales in between, then back as if no hardware was ever introduced. There's nothing in the numbers to suggest that the people that bought the new 3DS wouldn't have bought a regular 3DS otherwise. In fact since the new 3DS is selling at a lower margin than the regular 3DS the overall new 3DS endeavour could have actually lost Nintendo money overall, and that's completely ignoring the cost of development. So please, tell me how the new 3DS was obviously a good business move, because I'm not seeing it from any type of profit perspective, and for a publicly traded company like Nintendo and Sony, that's the perspective that matters most.
If you think third parties might support the PS4K and develop games that take advantage of the hardware, give me one reasonable scenario where developers will actually make more money as a result of doing it on their own initiative (i.e. Sony not paying them to do it). Because if you can't come up with a scenario that leads to increased profits, the it flat out will not happen. Making video games is a business after all.
All of those things you pointed out, the PS move, the VIta etc. All of those moves had obvious scenarios where these devices could have been successful. For example if the appeal of the Wii was exclusively with the controller than the move controller would have been a better way to play for those who felt that control scheme was a better experience. The vita actually looked pretty amazing on paper, and if they actually made a handheld that was as easy to port to as they advertised to it developers, you would have seen almost every PS3 game ported to the vita. However I know first hand how much of a total lie that was. If you want to make a portable console, it has to have console level games. But, the potential was there, at least on paper.
However, this PS4K with additional processing for games, the segmenting of the userbase, the increased development costs, all of that, and considering Sony already tried this with PSP and obviously wasted their money, makes absolutely zero sense, by any reasonable metric. It just flat out doesn't. Sony isn't perfect and they have made missteps, but you have to give them credit that they have learned from the past mis-steps. Yet there are so many people out there that expect them to make the same mis-step and now they expect different results with literally no reason to expect it won't wind up any differently.
So please, go ahead tell me, with evidence why you expect it to be different this time, because 4K tvs hitting 50% market share by the time the PS5 will be hitting the shelves isn't cutting it.
I get it, as a console gamer you want the best gaming experience possible, and you thinka PS4K would do that. Unfortunately in the real world you can't always get what you want. So it's time to put on the adult pants and face reality. You are not going to see a PS4 console that has any significant of meaningful processing power for use in improving PS4 games.
Currently Online 
