Jump to content

I think the Playstation 5 will fully eliminate console gaming's biggest weakness.


Eraezr

Recommended Posts

In the broad hobby of gaming, you have an echelon of gamers who want to get more out of their experience. Often this is higher frame rates, resolutions of graphical fidelity. While you have other gamers, who don't really care to much about that kind of stuff, and are content to just play their games. During the seventh console generation, PC gaming saw a rise as many gamers migrated from console to PC, favouring higher specs for third party games.

 

Quote

"I saw some data that really influenced me," Andrew House told The Guardian. "It suggested that there's a dip mid-console lifecycle where the players who want the very best graphical experience will start to migrate to PC, because that's obviously where it's to be had. We wanted to keep those people within our ecosystem by giving them the very best and very highest [performance quality]. So the net result of those thoughts was PlayStation 4 Pro--and, by and large, a graphical approach to game improvement."

 

Sony cannot control whether devs run their games in like 30 or 60fps. This is true to a degree for even first party studios, like Naughty Dog or Media Molecule, who enjoy a degree of autonomy which is good for business and gamers. But what they could do, is offer a two-console ecosystem. And have the Technical Requirements Checklist set to such, that the high end console is required to run games no lower than 60 Hz. Now some of you must be think:

 

  1. The PS4 Pro is supposed to be the high end console for this gen. Why aren't all its supported titles 60 Hz?
  2. Why even bother introducing the PS4 Pro if it could not guarantee 60 Hz?

 

The answer to question 2, easily lies by looking at 2016, when the internet reacted to GiantBomb's report on Project "NEO" (PS4 Pro codename) and when Microsoft tried to introduce some drastic changes to their ecosystem which sparked extraordinary backlash to such a degree, that the Xbox brand is still feeling the assbleed from Mattrick's legacy even now. Sony marketing analysts learned from M.S's mistakes, and realised that the eve of every new console generation, gamers are sensitive to big changes to their products, and it is easy to do turnarounds in competition around that time. So what they did do, was introduce the PS4 Pro during the height of PS4's popularity, to dampen backlashes and help ease the consciousness of console gamers, into getting used to a two-console ecosystem.

 

As for question 1, that's easy enough. PS4 Pro was introduced roughly 3 years into the gen, and in other to ensure 100% application integrity for its library, they had to use the same Jaguar clusters for that. I'm sure Mark Cerny must have researched into trying to work around this, but was convinced that introducing a new CPU architecture was still not worth the risk, ergo same Jaguar clusters, just overclocked.

 

Nintendo is already doing a two-SKU configuration with its Switch. Games run 30/60fps - 480/720 to 1080p in undocked and docked configuration and since the dev kits for two SKUs were handed to developers right before the Switch started its run, it is able to enjoy multiple configs with application integrity. Before the PS5 launches, Sony could have an entry machine, and the high end machine with a 160%+CPU/250%+ GPU advantage to eliminate console gaming's Achille's Heel, that is 30fps. And also, combat technological stagnation as the playerbase migrates to the higher end console in the later years when the machine becomes cheaper.

 

Edited by Eraezr
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless, I only buy one console. I feel resentment towards them for not releasing the higher end models at the same time. If they had offered PS4 and PS4 Pro at the exact same time but with Pro being a tad pricier I would have bought the Pro, but because they didn't I absolutely refuse to buy the Pro. Like in the case of the PS3, I had the Fat 80gb with backwards compatibility upgraded to 1tb. Then came an entire laundry list of re-modellings, after that I was thankfully able to avoid them but around the time the slim came out my old fat had burnt up from what people were calling a known defect with the soldering......I hate that phrase, a known defect -_-....The slim is still alive today and it doesn't heat my room up to 100 degrees either. The original PS4 is also running strong right next to it. We could say it was a design thought of later etc etc or that we didn't have the technology, but if we didn't have the technology then how is it that even on launch day for PS system a high end pc is still dwarfing the console, we have the technology ,...But I don't believe that Sony would choose a better product over more money in re-models, because it's just like an iPhone or a Galaxy, people who just bought the latest version last year absolutely have to have the latest tech. All IMO.

 

PC continues to gain console players (IMO) partly in part to the ability to cheaply upgrade ones PC rather than spend hundreds of dollars on a new model of PlayStation every so many odd years. If Sony manages to find a way to overcome that hurdle than sure but otherwise I think more people will go the PC route. Oh and by cheaply I don't mean buy the latest gpu and cpu fresh off launch just so you can manhandle well past any games playing capabilities and brag to your gaming pals about your shuper shexy shweet shetup. But who knows, I was happy about the PS3 to PS4 changes.

Edited by Asmund89
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a very high possibility that I'm just incredibly dense, but I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at with the answer to the second question. I'm guessing you're trying to say that the PS4 Pro was more-so a cheap way to condition console gamers into accepting the two-console system rather than actually providing a higher technological experience, which would explain its overall haphazardness. That's my cynical side talking though, and it would be foolhardy to assume everyone on the internet is as jaded as I am.

 

Anyway, if the PS5 is going to continue the two-console system with only the higher end console being capable of 60 FPS, they're not really "fully eliminating console gaming's biggest weakness," they're kinda just capitalizing on said weakness by justifying a higher price point with the existence of the weaker console. Like, let's say the weaker console is considered the default price point, let's say $400 for familiarity's sake. If they release both consoles at the same time, they can charge the stronger console for maybe $100 more and justify it by saying, "Look at how much better it is than the PS5 Pleb Edition!" all the while completing brushing aside the fact that we should definitely have a system capable of 60 FPS at the basic $400 by that point in time. This is something the casual consumer would probably ignore or just be oblivious to, but it's very likely it'll agitate or annoy the enthusiasts, which I would only assume is something you don't want if you want to prevent your consumer-base from jumping ship to PC.

 

2 hours ago, Eraezr said:

And also, combat technological stagnation as the playerbase migrates to the higher end console in the later years when the machine becomes cheaper.

 

I don't entirely agree with this statement. Stagnation would still be an issue since the weaker hardware would still be present, thus restricting just how far developers can go with the stronger hardware. Assuming every piece of (or at least the vast majority of) PS5 software is going to be compatible with each of the existing consoles, such as the case with the PS4 and PS4 Pro, the developers would still need to work within the constraints of the weaker console to ensure everyone has the opportunity to play their games. This would mean either the Pro version of the game can only be upgraded so much (perhaps only in frame rates and resolutions), or the Basic version will be horribly butchered in comparison to compensate. If it's the former, I think you might be overestimating just how many people would be willing to shift to the stronger console years into the console cycle, especially if both options were present since day one. Now, if it's announced before launch that after a certain point in time the weaker console would be abandoned to further development on the stronger one, the question would be: Why bother buying the weaker one? If you knew without a doubt that you're system is already dated and would be left behind a few years later, why not spend the extra $100 the first time rather than perhaps the $250 when you need to upgrade? The only answer I can think of would be if it were never announced in the first place, which would without a doubt anger quite a number of people, especially if both consoles shares the PlayStation 5 name. That heavily implies you'll be getting the entire PlayStation 5 experience, regardless of which console you picked up.

 

To wrap things up, I don't think 30 FPS is the biggest issue consoles have. For starters, it's not like consoles are completely incapable of 60 FPS. Developers just choose to sacrifice those frames for higher graphical fidelity. I think consoles' biggest issue at the moment (in terms of just technological prowess, that is) is that PC can have its cake and eat it too, at a better price point at that. Consoles have to constantly choose one thing over another, and as the years go on within a console generation, the gap between console and PC keeps getting bigger. The only way I can see to remedy this is to release a console that's closer to a high-end gaming rig from the start. However, they'd either need to sell at a loss or risk intimidating consumers with a high price point, both of which are pretty risky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Asmund89 said:

Regardless, I only buy one console. I feel resentment towards them for not releasing the higher end models at the same time. If they had offered PS4 and PS4 Pro at the exact same time but with Pro being a tad pricier I would have bought the Pro, but because they didn't I absolutely refuse to buy the Pro.

 

... :facepalm:

 

There's a reason why it was released so much later. It's not like they had it ready then, and they might not even have had it in mind at that point either.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Asmund89 said:

Regardless, I only buy one console. I feel resentment towards them for not releasing the higher end models at the same time. If they had offered PS4 and PS4 Pro at the exact same time but with Pro being a tad pricier I would have bought the Pro, but because they didn't I absolutely refuse to buy the Pro.

 

To be fair, they probably didn't have the technical prowess then to release it. I'm not a huge fan of the midlife console release, either, but honestly, it doesn't seem to be affecting my gaming at all.

 

Oops...

 

1 hour ago, MMDE said:

 

... :facepalm:

 

There's a reason why it was released so much later. It's not like they had it ready then, and they might not even have had it in mind at that point either.

 

Didn't mean to plagiarize. I should read the whole thread first.

 

But anyway, getting back to the OP, I have grave doubts about a lot of the assumptions here. I don't think that consoles dip midlife because people are looking for a better graphical experience. And I don't think that is console gaming's greatest weakness, anyway. In fact, I think one of the weaknesses of console gaming is trying to hard to be everything to everyone.

Edited by starcrunch061
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Asmund89 said:

Regardless, I only buy one console. I feel resentment towards them for not releasing the higher end models at the same time.

 

Many did feel this would have been more convenient. But from what I gathered from interviews, the pre-release days of the PS4 was such that Mark Cerny and Andrew House had limited soft power and bargaining with the higher ups of Sony, to the point where they had to issue an ultimatum that it would be the end of  Playstation if they did not go with 8GB GDDR5 (this was initially refused). This topped off with all the "experts" saying that this generation was supposed to have poorer sales than seventh gen, probably limited the negotation space for having two-console ecosystem right from the start (which would have been more expensive).

 

My biggest issue with the Pro, was the absence of a UHD drive. There's an agenda dissonance with having a 4K capable console (appropriate for 4K displays, yeah?) and somehow they feel that majority of 4K TV owners don't watch movies on UHD.

Edited by Eraezr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MMDE said:

 

... :facepalm:

 

There's a reason why it was released so much later. It's not like they had it ready then, and they might not even have had it in mind at that point either.

Maybe, maybe not, even if they did I wouldn't put it past them considering EVERY Playstation ever released has later had a remodeled slim version.....that's not a total coincidence. PS1, 2, 3, and 4 have all had later slim versions. I'd love to just give them that benefit but when you decide 4 separate times to release a slim version later, that alone may be the burden of proof. As to having the exact design concept right then maybe not, but you damn well knew that you were gonna be thinking up an idea later. I'm just saying for PS5 since you KNOW 4/4 times so far you've made a slim later why not just make it an option from the start....by that I mean yah go ahead and start thinking of the concept now -_-..I know were referring the Pro primarily in this statement but I'm using the slim argument to back it, I could end up waiting 3 years for a slim version that I know and they know they are going to release later on (because they always do)....Money.

Edited by Asmund89
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Asmund89 said:

Maybe, maybe not, even if they did I wouldn't put it past them considering EVERY Playstation ever released has later had a remodeled slim version.....that's not a total coincidence. PS1, 2, 3, and 4 have all had later slim versions. I'd love to just give them that benefit but when you decide 4 separate times to release a slim version later that may or may not be the burden of proof as to having the idea right then but you damn well knew that you were gonna be thinking up an idea later. I'm just saying for PS5 since you KNOW 4/4 times so far you've made a slim later why not just make it an option from the start......

 

Are you serious? That's like asking why they didn't make laptops as small and light with as much power as they do now several years ago.

 

  1. Hardware development progresses all the time.
  2. They are making the same older and older hardware.
  3. They see this and know with today's progress in hardware development they can now make it a smaller product with the same power at little extra cost.
  4. Why not do it if people want it?
  5. Had they made the same size console today, you'd get the same size console with more power, likely not a smaller one.

 

You really see a conspiracy here and have contempt for Sony because of this? ?

Edited by MMDE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Asmund89 said:

PC continues to gain console players (IMO) partly in part to the ability to cheaply upgrade ones PC rather than spend hundreds of dollars on a new model of PlayStation every so many odd years.

 

Upgrading a PC isn't "cheap"... the fancy new video cards generally tend to be a couple hundred dollars in their own right, and that's assuming you don't need to upgrade the CPU, RAM, PSU, mobo, cooling, etc as well to avoid issues or bottlenecks.

 

Though admittedly for little more than the PS4 Pro's pricetag, you could get a solid video card and maybe even a solid mid-high range CPU and see a much more significant improvement... moreso than going from the standard PS4 to the PS4 Pro.

 

That's where this whole "mid-generation upgrade" thing is kind of a waste IMO.  The jump in graphics isn't enough to warrant the price and the Pro isn't going to be getting any exclusive games or anything, whereas a new video card and CPU in a PC could very well open the door to tons of great new games (or graphical options in your older games) that you really couldn't play before.  It's not hard to see where that same general amount of $$ is better spent.

 

The PS4 Pro is about as luxury as luxury items get... unless you really have some money to burn and want little more than some decent graphical/framerate improvements to the same games that generally work perfectly fine on the standard PS4.

 

 

tl;dr ... if the goal of the PS4 Pro is to slow the bleeding of gamers to PC mid-generation because their console feels outdated and/or falling behind, I think it was a swing and a miss.  Not necessarily because upgrading a PC is cheaper, but because the Pro isn't different enough from the standard PS4 to warrant the price.

 

 

30 minutes ago, Asmund89 said:

I'm just saying for PS5 since you KNOW 4/4 times so far you've made a slim later why not just make it an option from the start......

 

Because those Slim consoles are generally made from better technology that either isn't available, or not available at an affordable-enough price, when the console originally launches.

Edited by Dreakon13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, MMDE said:

 

You really see a conspiracy here and have contempt for Sony because of this? 1f602.png

Devil's advocate etc. it suits me ^_^ ... What else was I gonna type...I agree? I think we've all argued for the sake of arguing at some point or another.

Edited by Asmund89
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it offers something new, I'll buy it.

 

PS4 offered better graphics and newer games over the PS3, so I bought it.

Xbox offered backward compatibility and other cool features, so I bought it.

Switch offers console quality games on a portable machine, so I bought it.

 

Could give a fuck less about 4K/1080/30FPS/60FPS/any of it. If the games on the machine are fun, and the machine offers something I can't get elsewhere, I'll be there. When the day comes that a PC is just a Switch size tablet that you dock at home and I can finally take the last 20 odd years worth of games on the go, then I'll give up on console gaming, but until then, each console offers a unique selling point to me. PS4 has the best multiplats and a library of exclusives, Xbox offers backward compatibility in addition to all the multiplats, Switch offers high fidelity gaming on the go.

 

If you want fancy specs and shit, go PC. If you just wanna play the fucking game and have fun, consoles are still the easiest way baby.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Super-Fly Spider-Guy said:

If it offers something new, I'll buy it.

 

PS4 offered better graphics and newer games over the PS3, so I bought it.

 

Not to make a whole big thing out of it, but a solid hardware upgrade in a PC generally tends to do the same things (better graphics and the ability to play newer games).

 

Though I agree most PC exclusives can't hold a candle to Sony's first party offerings... and oddly enough, rarely take advantage of the PC's raw power (see: most strategy games, most Blizzard games, MOBAs, MMO's, popular shooters like CS:GO, etc).  Which is odd considering how some PC gamers sing praises of their beefy rigs, you'd think PC exclusive games in particular would really want to show that off.  Yet we haven't seen a PC exclusive really push the boundries since Crysis.

Edited by Dreakon13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PC is the best place to game in my opinion, and has been pretty much always. That being said it's not always the most practical place to game, I use a Console because it suits my situation I can share my library with my family over two consoles and the plug and play nature it just works. PC really for the enthusiast gamer who wants to best visuals, performance, and the biggest library and is willing to pay for it. Also the big games exclusive to PC don't really interest me anymore ... CS:GO, Lol, DOTA, Starcraft etc are mostly always focused on competitive multiplayer, I'd rather trade those for good exclusive single player games which you can find on console.

 

I was a PC gamer for 15 years and don't regret switching to Console as I got older it just didn't fit my family lifestyle anymore. I built my own rigs never anything crazy but I always aimed for mid - range best price / performance I could get, and unless anything changed in the last 5 or so years it was never as cheap as people claim. If I wanted to build a 4k rig right now I'd need a monitor, keyboard, mouse, headset and a copy of windows before I start looking at components. In reality you are going to be looking at around 1000 Euros to get a setup and that's not going to be anywhere near high end.

 

I don't see console or PC going away anytime soon ... numbers will go up and down but they both serve different audiences with different needs and expectations. I expect PS5 will be be the same as PS4 most games will be 30 FPS some will be 60 FPS, graphics are used to sell games and most Devs still choose to crank up visuals and sacrafice FPS to market thier games, maybe one day that will shift but I don't see it happening anytime soon ... Personally I just wish Devs would include a 60 FPS option in thier games, with reduced graphics to compensate, hell make the 30 FPS mode default so marketing can have thier eye candy but give the gamers a choice about performance when they play the game.

 

 

Edited by tpepper1985
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, tpepper1985 said:

PC has is the best place to game, and has been pretty much always. That being said it's not always the most practical place to game, I use a Console because it suits my situation I can share my library with my family over two consoles and the plug and play nature it just works. PC really for the enthusiast gamer who wants to best visuals, performance, and the biggest library and is willing to pay for it.

 

I was a PC gamer for 15 years and don't regret switching to Console as I got older it just didn't fit my family lifestyle anymore. I built my own rigs never anything crazy but I always aimed for mid - range best price / performance I could get, and unless anything changed in the last 5 or so years it was never as cheap as people claim. If I wanted to build a 4k rig right now I'd need a monitor, keyboard, mouse, headset and a copy of windows before I start looking at components. In reality you are going to be looking at around 1000 Euros to get a setup and that's not going to be anywhere near high end.

 

 

"Best place to game" is highly subjective.  Like you even said, there are a ton of valid reasons to prefer consoles.

 

Best place to game... from the perspective of someone who cares solely about graphics and framerates?  Now that I can see.

Edited by Dreakon13
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dreakon13 said:

 

"Best place to game" is highly subjective.  Like you even said, there are a ton of valid reasons to prefer consoles.

 

Best place to game... from the perspective of someone who cares solely about graphics and framerates?  Now that I can see.

 

Yeah should have added "In my opinion" to that, will do it now haha. 

 

But really the PC platform offers alot, emulation, customisation, more than a single marketplace to buy games, multi tasking, you can still play games that are from older generations, performance. If you want to get into competitive gaming it's also the main platform for that.

 

In reality 10 years of my gaming time on PC were mostly spent playing a single game, World of Warcraft which you can't play on a Console it's simply way too complex. That is probably one of the only things I miss about PC is the complex games where the controller just can't match a keyboard and mouse due to lack of buttons.

 

Having said that I'm so glad they are releasing Pillars of Eternity for PS4 I love those old style RPGs and I thought I'd never see it on Console, very interested to see how they implement the controls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, tpepper1985 said:

 

Yeah should have added "In my opinion" to that, will do it now haha. 

 

But really the PC platform offers alot, emulation, customisation, more than a single marketplace to buy games, multi tasking, you can still play games that are from older generations, performance. If you want to get into competitive gaming it's also the main platform for that.

 

In reality 10 years of my gaming time on PC were mostly spent playing a single game, World of Warcraft which you can't play on a Console it's simply way too complex. That is probably one of the only things I miss about PC is the complex games where the controller just can't match a keyboard and mouse due to lack of buttons.

 

Having said that I'm so glad they are releasing Pillars of Eternity for PS4 I love those old style RPGs and I thought I'd never see it on Console, very interested to see how they implement the controls.

 

I could debate these points until I'm blue in the face... the legal gray area of emulation (and/or the effort involved in "doing it right" by ripping your own games and BIOS), the convoluted nature of maintaining multiple storefront clients while having the majority of your friends and games and features only on Steam, the lack of need for multi tasking in most games that aren't grindy MMO's (especially in a world of smartphones and tablets that can easily be used side-by-side with a console), the plethora of games that are console or Playstation exclusives that you can't get no matter how big your library is.

 

But like you said, it's really a matter of opinion.  Generally the things that make PC the best (which most multiplatform games undeniably look and run their best on PC) come at a cost, if not money then time/effort/research.

Edited by Dreakon13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dreakon13 said:

 

I could debate these points until I'm blue in the face... the legal gray area of emulation (and/or the effort involved in "doing it right" by ripping your own games and BIOS), the convoluted nature of maintaining multiple storefront clients while having the majority of your friends and games and features only on Steam, the lack of need for multi tasking in most games that aren't grindy MMO's, the plethora of games that are console or Playstation exclusives that you can't get no matter how big your library is.

 

But like you said, it's really a matter of opinion.  Generally the things that make PC the best come at a cost, if not money then time/effort/research.

 

All valid points! I'm happy with my Playstation and will continue to stay with Playstation so long as things continue much as they are now. The only thing that would really give me pause is if the PS5 is not backwards compatible with the PS4 library, things would become a bit tougher then ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am more afraid that next generation they will abandon physical media completely. So you need to buy every game trough the console manufacturer store.

 

Mean while on PC they will drop Windows 7 support so basically you will need to upgrade to Windows 8+ if you don't want to be easily hacked.

 

3 minutes ago, tpepper1985 said:

 

All valid points! I'm happy with my Playstation and will continue to stay with Playstation so long as things continue much as they are now. The only thing that would really give me pause is if the PS5 is not backwards compatible with the PS4 library, things would become a bit tougher then ...

 

I think they are not going to do backwards compatibility. More money in just porting the games.

Edited by Doomsdayman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, tpepper1985 said:

 

All valid points! I'm happy with my Playstation and will continue to stay with Playstation so long as things continue much as they are now. The only thing that would really give me pause is if the PS5 is not backwards compatible with the PS4 library, things would become a bit tougher then ...

 

I built myself a ~$1000 mid-to-high end PC probably 4-5 years ago as a reprieve from console gaming... and while I really enjoyed my time on the platform, I came back to the Playstation maybe a year or so ago and haven't really looked back.  It was getting the point where I could no longer confidently buy new games expecting them to run well, which is a pretty crummy feeling and I think a common one for those on the brink of needing an upgrade.  Granted, say, knowing you need to buy a PS4 when it comes out vs keeping your PS3 if you want to stay relevant isn't entirely different... I feel like its an easier pill to swallow than the unknowns of researching the latest PC hardware and the risk of buying games that just may not work on my specs anymore (depending on how "generous" the developers were when listing the system requirements).

 

That and I didn't really have any games I absolutely loved on PC, like I assume you had in World of Warcraft.  I was just playing multiplatform games primarily anyways, and my go-to have always been the NHL games... which they stopped making for PC. xD  And 99% of what I did play was on a gamepad too, since I never really cared for mouse and keyboard.  I'm just built for consoles I guess.

 

I definitely understand the appeal of PC for some though.  I was flabbergasted when I first turned on Sleeping Dogs in 1080P and 60fps on the PC vs the muddy mess I had played on the Xbox 360.  I was there at one point.

Edited by Dreakon13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...