Rumor: Ps4k

[the-pi-guy]

That ^

It could be very cool, but it also has so many ingredients for disaster.  
And a lot of what Sony seems to be advising based on what has been leaked, seems like for the most part in the right direction.  

But there are still gaps in certain decisions, and even some of the really good exciting prospects seem to be doubled edged swords.  Like higher frame rate, that's great.  But how hard are they doing to push PS4 version to be runnable?  What are we to do if PS4K is running at 60 like Legend was saying above?

Is there potential for PSVR games to be 60 fps reprojected to 120 fps, whole PS4k does it natively instead?  

Is it fair to the consumer who jumped on their product day one and paid 400$ and paid 400$ for VR to get potentially worse experiences?

It's a doubled edged sword, a lot of its benefits might end up hurting the ecosystem in some way.  

[Legend]

It could be very cool, but it also has so many ingredients for disaster.  

Yeah Sony's navigating a minefield.

It'll be incredible seeing the official reveal and how they talk about it. They need to nail the messaging from day one.

[Dr. Pezus]

That ^

It could be very cool, but it also has so many ingredients for disaster.  
And a lot of what Sony seems to be advising based on what has been leaked, seems like for the most part in the right direction.  

But there are still gaps in certain decisions, and even some of the really good exciting prospects seem to be doubled edged swords.  Like higher frame rate, that's great.  But how hard are they doing to push PS4 version to be runnable?  What are we to do if PS4K is running at 60 like Legend was saying above?

Is there potential for PSVR games to be 60 fps reprojected to 120 fps, whole PS4k does it natively instead?  

Is it fair to the consumer who jumped on their product day one and paid 400$ and paid 400$ for VR to get potentially worse experiences?

It's a doubled edged sword, a lot of its benefits might end up hurting the ecosystem in some way.  

Is it fair for pc gamers who bought $1000 machines 3 years ago that they have to upgrade now if they want the best graphics and framerate?

[darkknightkryta]

Is it fair for pc gamers who bought $1000 machines 3 years ago that they have to upgrade now if they want the best graphics and framerate?

The reason why people console game is to avoid that.  Which is why the whole "PS4K" can blow up in Sony's face.  If I didn't care about changing video cards every 4 years, I'd just buy a PC instead.  If I spend 500 dollars on a game console, I want to get some mileage out of it before I put it down for a far more powerful console.

[Dr. Pezus]

The reason why people console game is to avoid that.  Which is why the whole "PS4K" can blow up in Sony's face.  If I didn't care about changing video cards every 4 years, I'd just buy a PC instead.  If I spend 500 dollars on a game console, I want to get some mileage out of it before I put it down for a far more powerful console.

Thing is, you can still avoid that. Nothing will change. What this does is give other people a choice of better graphics/framerate for more money while playing the same games. Mass market will still probably buy the normal ps4 more than this one

[Legend]

Giant Bomb: PS4K / Neo may require games to run at minimum 1080p + 1080p remote play - NeoGAF

[darkknightkryta]

Thing is, you can still avoid that. Nothing will change. What this does is give other people a choice of better graphics/framerate for more money while playing the same games. Mass market will still probably buy the normal ps4 more than this one

This does change everything though.  What's to stop Sony from making an upgraded Playstation every 3 years?

[ethomaz]

- No more sub-1080p games (games in 900p on PS4 will run at 1080p on PS4k... 1080p is requerer on PS4k)
- Remote Play up to 1080p with PS4k (internal DVR already record at 1080p @ 60 on PS4 but It can't streaming at that resolution due GPU... now PS4k can)
- All PS4 accessories are compatibles.

PS4K may require games to run at minimum 1080p; new Neo info leaks - VideoGamer.com

[Mmm_fish_tacos]

This does change everything though.  What's to stop Sony from making an upgraded Playstation every 3 years?

What would be wrong with that? I think it was always the plan and part of the reason for the shift to x86.

[Legend]

How would you guys feel if with PS5, Sony had the standard and beefy unit both launch at the same time? $400 and $700?

Then you would be able to pay extra and get the best graphics from day one. Personally that'd be swell, as long as a second even beefier unit didn't come along mid way through the gen.

[Mmm_fish_tacos]

How would you guys feel if with PS5, Sony had the standard and beefy unit both launch at the same time? $400 and $700?

Then you would be able to pay extra and get the best graphics from day one. Personally that'd be swell, as long as a second even beefier unit didn't come along mid way through the gen.

Only if its upgrade able. Which i think sony should do next. Just make it modular and allow is to upgrade over the years.

[kitler53]

The reason why people console game is to avoid that.  Which is why the whole "PS4K" can blow up in Sony's face.  If I didn't care about changing video cards every 4 years, I'd just buy a PC instead.  If I spend 500 dollars on a game console, I want to get some mileage out of it before I put it down for a far more powerful console.

not 1 person has ever purchased a console to avoid having other people be able to play games at higher performance.

people buy consoles for the "plug 'n play" aspect and the good cost/performance ratio and the exclusive games.

This does change everything though.  What's to stop Sony from making an upgraded Playstation every 3 years?

nothing.  and i promise we will have another upgrade in 3 years,.. that's the point of iterative hardware.  it's been a great business model for both apple and their consumers in the phone space,.. some people upgrade every year, others every 2, other 4 or more years.  now in consoles instead of a mandated 6 year cycle now users can choose a 3, 6, 9, or 12 year cycle depending on their tolerance for wanting the latest whatever.

this is also good for poor people.  not everyone can afford $400.  being locked out being able to play killzone SF or bloodborne or whatever for years simply because you can't afford the latest hardware at $400 is stupid.  the "base" model will be cheaper and run the game at a lower performance and be a good option for those can want to be able to play the latest games.  it's good for mainstream consumers and it's good for developers who both currently avoid the entire year after a hardware launch due to low game availability and low user base.  that transition year sucks for everyone and now it is gone.

How would you guys feel if with PS5, Sony had the standard and beefy unit both launch at the same time? $400 and $700?

Then you would be able to pay extra and get the best graphics from day one. Personally that'd be swell, as long as a second even beefier unit didn't come along mid way through the gen.

dumb idea.

their will be a new hardware in 3 years and it's irrelevant what it is called.  5.  4k S.  whatever,.. it's just marketing now.

a $700 unit will never sell to anyone.  sony is doing the right think.. always have a $400 model and always have a model less than that ($300 or less).  we'll get and upgrade every 3 years now and you'll never see a traditional "generation" break again.  hardware might get marketed at "5" but it will never have and exclusive game because all games will be mandated to be backwards compatibile at least 1 hardware revision. 

smaller games will probably go back more than 2.

Only if its upgrade able. Which i think sony should do next. Just make it modular and allow is to upgrade over the years.

another dumb idea,.. consoles are entirely about "plug 'n play". 

modularity is bad.

[the-pi-guy]

nothing.  and i promise we will have another upgrade in 3 years,.. that's the point of iterative hardware.  it's been a great business model for both apple and their consumers in the phone space,.. some people upgrade every year, others every 2, other 4 or more years.  now in consoles instead of a mandated 6 year cycle now users can choose a 3, 6, 9, or 12 year cycle depending on their tolerance for wanting the latest whatever.

Phones are very different from consoles.  
People feel they need phones, the cell phone market is substantially larger than the console market.  You buy a phone, your sister buys a phone, your mom buys a phone, your dad buys a phone, your grandma buys a phone, etc.  
People also don't really buy phones for games.  Do you think people go on buses and say guys, look at how amazing fruit ninja looks!
When it comes to phones, the appeal is more about the phone.  "Guys look at how huge the display on this is!"  Stuff like that.  Everyone buys a phone the same reason most people buy PCs.  They are useful, have tons of applications, and hey we can play a game if I want.  

When people buy game consoles, it's more like DVD players.  Its focus is entertainment on a big screen.  

this is also good for poor people.  not everyone can afford $400.  being locked out being able to play killzone SF or bloodborne or whatever for years simply because you can't afford the latest hardware at $400 is stupid.  the "base" model will be cheaper and run the game at a lower performance and be a good option for those can want to be able to play the latest games.  it's good for mainstream consumers and it's good for developers who both currently avoid the entire year after a hardware launch due to low game availability and low user base.  that transition year sucks for everyone and now it is gone.

This is kind of the opposite of the point.  For a lot of people, this is exactly why they are worried about the 4K.  Is our 400$ investment going to be completely worthless with a new system?  
(While it sounds like Sony is absolutely ensuring that it's not the case, people are still going to worry about it.)  

Now your assumption seems to be that instead of a PS5, we are going to basically get PS4.1, PS4.2, PS4.3, etc...  
That doesn't seem to be what the situation here is. That doesn't seem to be what Sony is going for.  It seems like their intention right now is solely PS4K, a PS4 capable of 4K.  Doesn't stamp out the possibility that the PS5 will come out in 3 years, and we will see if it is backwards compatible.  

not 1 person has ever purchased a console to avoid having other people be able to play games at higher performance.
people buy consoles for the "plug 'n play" aspect and the good cost/performance ratio and the exclusive games.

Of course they haven't.  But most people that buy consoles don't like having to worry about multiple SKUs, decision making.  Just buying a console, and playing it for 5-6 years, until the next one comes out.  

[ethomaz]

PS5 today is a terrible ideia...
PS4k today is a good ideia...

That is how I fell.

http://www.neogaf.com/showthread.php?p=201466286

[Legend]

not 1 person has ever purchased a console to avoid having other people be able to play games at higher performance.

people buy consoles for the "plug 'n play" aspect and the good cost/performance ratio and the exclusive games.
nothing.  and i promise we will have another upgrade in 3 years,.. that's the point of iterative hardware.  it's been a great business model for both apple and their consumers in the phone space,.. some people upgrade every year, others every 2, other 4 or more years.  now in consoles instead of a mandated 6 year cycle now users can choose a 3, 6, 9, or 12 year cycle depending on their tolerance for wanting the latest whatever.

this is also good for poor people.  not everyone can afford $400.  being locked out being able to play killzone SF or bloodborne or whatever for years simply because you can't afford the latest hardware at $400 is stupid.  the "base" model will be cheaper and run the game at a lower performance and be a good option for those can want to be able to play the latest games.  it's good for mainstream consumers and it's good for developers who both currently avoid the entire year after a hardware launch due to low game availability and low user base.  that transition year sucks for everyone and now it is gone.
dumb idea.

their will be a new hardware in 3 years and it's irrelevant what it is called.  5.  4k S.  whatever,.. it's just marketing now.

a $700 unit will never sell to anyone.  sony is doing the right think.. always have a $400 model and always have a model less than that ($300 or less).  we'll get and upgrade every 3 years now and you'll never see a traditional "generation" break again.  hardware might get marketed at "5" but it will never have and exclusive game because all games will be mandated to be backwards compatibile at least 1 hardware revision.  

smaller games will probably go back more than 2.
another dumb idea,.. consoles are entirely about "plug 'n play".  

modularity is bad.

If that was the case, steam machines would be the solution.

They hit all your checkboxes much better than what micro generations could do.