Are you serious with  that first question? Obviously I wouldn't have a problem it If it's a new generation PS5! That would be  a NEW GENERATION so of course it would have better specs and exclusive games. And if it was backwards compatible with the PS4 all the better. I'd buy it day one.

This thread is about Sony doing an unprecedented mid-generation change to the PS4 performance specs and essentially getting a "do over" for the current generation - while screwing over 40 million existing customers in the process.

As to the second point, what I meant was that a PS4 (beta) user will have a suboptimal experience *when compared to PS4+/Neo users*,  not that the performance of the current PS4 is delivering a suboptimal experience at the moment.  In other words, your buddy playing Destiny on his new PS4+ against you on your  original PS4(beta) is going to have an advantage because he's using the "better" console in terms of fps, frame drops, lag, etc.  If you don't think developers are going to optimize their games for the "better PS4" at the expense of the "ghetto PS4" then you are deluding yourself.

You're turing in circles and your arguments don't make sense.

So you prefer a a device that is stronger, has a new platform, possibly does not feature backwards compatibility and has exclusive games forcing customers to upgrade. Over a device that is stronger, has the same platform, definitely does feature backwards compatibility, has no exclusive games, making it optional and as such consumer friendly.

I will never get you people.

Also please look up the word "optimal". If there is a way to do a current thing better(PS4K) then the current thing is NOT optimal, or suboptimal as we folks call it. The question shouldn't be "why is his console faster?" but "Why did they release a console that is too slow?". We wouldn't have this problem if PS4 could already hold 60 fps. An upgrade to 120fps wouldn't be marginal enough to make a difference.

Thank you!!! Hit the nail right on the head. This is exactly why I have been saying I don't understand where some of them are coming from. Ah well.......

You forget the arbitrary time number and other factors.

For example, an upgrade after 4 years(NX) is absolutely fine because reasons. 3 years however(PS4K) is a sin against humanity and should be purged. Except if it's called New 3DS.

You can also only release a new console when the old one is not selling well(WiiU). But under no circumstances you can release one if the previous console still sells well(PS4). Except if it's called 3DS.

Those are just some of the very important facts which are based on the science which I will call consology.

My favorite one was actually ....

"Fuck Sony, making a PS4 that's more powerful than the PS4. Bow they have split the userbase and will fail and lose all the good will that they have built over the years and MS or Nintendo will take over. Besides, if consoles now have tiers and some people now have technical advantage over others, and some people can play a better version of the same game; that's it!!!! I'm switching to PC. " 

Yeah, the logic of those people is great.

Like how 2 platforms that are interconnected, use the same platform and have no exclusives between each other are splitting the userbase. Apparently it needs a generation change and exclusive games so that the userbase is not split.

I'm going to type this slowly, so maybe you'll comprehend.

If you are a PC gamer then you go in knowing that constant improvements in GPU's, CPU's, memory, etc are just part of the environment  and that's perfectly fine because that is the model for PC gaming. You know that nVidia's next latest and greatest graphics card will be released in 6 months and that if you want the optimal performance from the newest games then you'll need to upgrade.

On the other hand the value proposition for a video game console has always been that a given generation's hardware specs are "locked" so there isn't the constanted upgrade cycle that PC gamers know and accept going in.  Sony is trying to get a 'do over' on this generation by upgrading the specs of the PS4 mid-generation, and by by doing so they are creating two different versions of the same platform, with one performing better than the other.

If Sony released an underpowered PS4 2 years ago then that was their own fault for jumping the gun before the hardware was where it needed to be, or for being greedy by cutting corners on hardware to increase their per unit profits.  Either way, that was Sony's decision and they need to work within those performance specs for this generation, until they decide to launch the next generation (PS5) because that is how the console market works.  To do this half-assed 'upgrade' midway through the PS4's lifecycle only fractures the user base into the 40 million of us with the under-powered version and the new adopters (or repeat buyers) who have a better version that can support games with more/better features.

User was moderated for this post

-Super_Boom

Why am I not surprised that so many people here know nothing about PC gaming.

The bolded statements are completely false. And I'd appreciate if people would stop spreading that fudd.

People buy a PC once that fits in their budget and stick to it for as long as possible. Constant hardware upgrades even just every 2 years are only for the richest of PC gamers. News flash: those PC gamers are a very tiny minority. About as tiny as people owning multiple consoles of a generation. The majority sticks to what they got for many years and a lot of them even start off with shabby hardware and are actually playing with Intel graphics for years. Pc gamers upgrading constantly is a stupid myth spread by console gamers to make them feel better.

The same as the myth that constant upgrades are "necessary" to play the latest games. You can play current games just fine with 5 year old PC hardware. It's not the cutting edge experience that a minority of PC gamers strives to but for most that's absolutely fine.

The only difference between PC and consoles is that PC gamers know that they always have the option to upgrade even if they don't need it. That is a good thing. 

CHOICE IS A GOOD THING!

That choice has been missing from the console business for several reasons but none of these apply today. Console gamers are clinging to tradition rather than common sense and consumer advocacy.

That mythical "split userbase" is not a thing. You know what? Console gamers are the most split userbase in the whole gaming industry. There are currently 3! different console manufacturers that are splitting the userbase. None of these userbases can play together, they can't even enjoy the same games due to exclusives. Then there are the generation changes that split the userbases even further thanks to exclusives. And then comes along the first console upgrade that has no exclusives and suddenly people are afraid it's splitting the userbase? Are you fucking kidding me?

All these years of no choice and split userbases have apparently irreversably changed the way some people think about gaming. They've been lulled into being ok with having just a fraction of the available gaming content and are now even supporting the company's selfish desire to bind users to their single platform so they don't have to put any effort into offering choice. It's now sacrilegious to go against "that's how it has always been".

I think what Sony is doing is great. Finally giving gamers at least some choice, even though apparently you people do not want or deserve it.

Nowhere did I ever say that constant upgrades are "necessary" to play the latest PC games. My exact statement was: " if you want the optimal performance from the newest games then you'll need to upgrade."  

Key phrase "optimal performance".  Are you saying that is not a true statement?