In reply to a post by jorkila:

I do think that it's poor from sony to bring an updated console to the market inside 3 years of the previous one, sadly none of us including myself will vote with our wallets!

I don't. I might be disappointed if I couldn't afford a new one, but how can that be a manufacturer's fault? Everybody is talking as if the PS4 is being superceded. That would be financial suicide and just isn't going to happen.

Internet mentality:

A) Consoles were underpowered at launch.
B) Consoles should be backward compatible.
C) Consoles should have the longest possible refresh cycle, measured in years.

Put yourself in a manufacturer's shoes. How do A, B and C correlate?
And why three years? Would four years be ok? If so, why? If not, why not?

Do you see what I'm getting at?

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

by the way I have the original ps3 and it may surprise you its smaller than the ps4 its only bigger in one of the three dimensions. PS4 is bigger in the other two.

Interesting, but irrelevant.

"There are lies, damn lies, and statistics."

The PS3 fat is much bigger than the PS4 by volume.

How many times do we here PC Gamers complaining about consoles holding back PC development and getting shoddy ports.

A good point, well made.

Have you bumped your head?

Or blowing away......?

So alot of your opinion is based on that you think these rumours are wrong and sony will do something more sensible, obviously i hope you correct.

In terms of spec changes a doubling of gpu power is massive tho, this would be far from a incremental update. usually gen upgrade's on amd and nvidia are lucky to be 50% never mind doubling of power. This sort of upgrade bump is like about 2-3 generations of gpu in one go.

If we look at things like cost of these chip's and heat omitted by the more powerful chips it is easy to say it doesnt make much sense, the ps4.5 would either be very expensive or sold at a loss, however amd have just got a new gpu technology which seems to have made massive gains in power efficiency, low power also means low heat, which then just leaves the cost, if microsoft are trying to shift themselves to the pc market which leaves amd with no revenue on future microsoft console sales, then it could be seen as a good strategy to invest heavily into their sony partnership, ultimately meaning a more favourable deal given to sony for these new chips.

Edited by Chrysalis (Wed 06-Apr-16 08:07:16)

In reply to a post by mrnelster:

In reply to a post by jorkila:

I do think that it's poor from sony to bring an updated console to the market inside 3 years of the previous one, sadly none of us including myself will vote with our wallets!

I don't. I might be disappointed if I couldn't afford a new one, but how can that be a manufacturer's fault? Everybody is talking as if the PS4 is being superceded. That would be financial suicide and just isn't going to happen.

Internet mentality:

A) Consoles were underpowered at launch.
B) Consoles should be backward compatible.
C) Consoles should have the longest possible refresh cycle, measured in years.

Put yourself in a manufacturer's shoes. How do A, B and C correlate?
And why three years? Would four years be ok? If so, why? If not, why not?

Do you see what I'm getting at?

Painfully I mostly agree with what you are saying but there will be those that:

A) Cannot afford it.
B) Simply refuse to because it is out of the norm to release a new console so soon!
C) Last but not least, won't be allowed to because the enemy said no

Overall though this proves that these supposed next gen consoles were underpowered to begin with!

Until you see what games can look like with developers such as Naughty Dog and Uncharted 4 which we all know will blow most of whats out at present completely out of the water.

I don't think the playstation 4 is that bad to be fair,it just depends on certain developers like Rockstar and Naughty Dog that seem to be way ahead of most other people in terms of games and presentation.

I mean just look at the quality from those two over the years,look how nice GTA5 looked on a ageing Playstation 3.

In reply to a post by jorkila:

In reply to a post by mrnelster:

In reply to a post by jorkila:

I do think that it's poor from sony to bring an updated console to the market inside 3 years of the previous one, sadly none of us including myself will vote with our wallets!

I don't. I might be disappointed if I couldn't afford a new one, but how can that be a manufacturer's fault? Everybody is talking as if the PS4 is being superceded. That would be financial suicide and just isn't going to happen.

Internet mentality:

A) Consoles were underpowered at launch.
B) Consoles should be backward compatible.
C) Consoles should have the longest possible refresh cycle, measured in years.

Put yourself in a manufacturer's shoes. How do A, B and C correlate?
And why three years? Would four years be ok? If so, why? If not, why not?

Do you see what I'm getting at?

Painfully I mostly agree with what you are saying but there will be those that:

A) Cannot afford it.
B) Simply refuse to because it is out of the norm to release a new console so soon!
C) Last but not least, won't be allowed to because the enemy said no

Overall though this proves that these supposed next gen consoles were underpowered to begin with!

.

If your into games then you will beg,steel or borrow to upgrade if rumours about playstation 4.5 are true.

Don't forget its not going to be such a hit if you consider that more than likely places like Game [urrrh] and CEX will probably give you at least half the cost of upgrading back,especially if your keyed up and know whats on the horizon.

Personally i will watch the news extremely closely and if i was going down the trade in route i would trade my Playstation 4 in 2 weeks before the release of the upgrade,because you and me both know that a few million if not more will be doing the same and there will be a avalanche of trade in playstation 4s and that will drop the price of the trade ins.

Personally i think this is more to do with there yet unreleased VR and pressure from VR developers telling them with a little more power they could achieve so much more,i think there are a few restrictions developing VR that Sony did not take into consideration,at the end of the day they are not going to admit that,just my thoughts and everybody knows on here i won't be upgrading to play VR games,and if its announced that this is solely for VR based games and the normal games won't look any different then i will not be upgrading.

Edited by time2die (Wed 06-Apr-16 11:07:04)

Just read some more discussions, those saying its a good thing never really adress the one fundamental issue.

Why is it ok for a £400 investment expected to last 5-8 years suddenly be only ok for 0-2 years instead?

They seem to be ignoring counter arguments.

e.g. the mobile market, the vast majority of people refresh mobile phones every 2-3 years because the telco subsides the phone and gives them interest free credit terms. There is very few people paying full whack for a PAYG new phone model every 12 months.

For sony to have something even remotely similar then a ps+ subscription woul dhave to give you the console fully inclusive in the price, with the console been refreshed every couple of years, I wonder how much sony like that idea when they the ones paying for the upgrades.

Pc market? I again /i already said why, but will refresh., PC market is already accepted as a dynamic market, there is no one single spec everyone uses, however because of this people know what they buying into when entering the PC market, the rules are not "suddenly" been changed. REasonable predictions can also be made when nvidia and AMD release new GPUs and in general cpu's can last 5-10 years with no upgrades, likewise ram, gpu's usually 2-4 years. Upgrading a PC is typically upgrading individual components rather than buying an entire new box, and purchasing all components again due to the non standards ben changed on new boxes. PC games, usually have a minimum spec that will work at reasonable performance on a 5 year old pc.

If we look at this current gen of consoles. So far they have been pretty bad on the games side, lots of remastered games, very few first party games with sony and microsoft both shutting down studios, many new games been usual annual rehashes like fifa and COD, occasional new IP's such as the division but definitely a disappointing generation, the vast majority of games that are on my PS4 list, have yet to be released and it wouldnt be surprising now if they were now been optimised for the ps4.5, which seems to already be the case with FF15. With square enix saying its at 20fps on the ps4 but not to worry it will be 30fps on the 4.5.

I look at my ps3 games library, and then at my ps4 games library, the ps4 pile is like a bungalow and ps3 like the eiffel tower.

The only people who seem to be happy about this seem to fall into one of the following categories.

1 - no regard to expenditure on console hardware, so going from paying £400 every 6 years to every 2 years is not an issue for the consumer.
2 - They are consumers that only play the latest releases, and even tend to trade in games when they get bored of them.
3 - They are developers.
4 - They work for the media.
5 - They work for sony.

Developers and the media have a very loud noise and its creating a somewhat distorted picture, but on the vast majority of forums I have read with consumers discussing, its clear there is going to be a lot of alienated people. This is not ok, and sony need to be made aware of that, it seems the only language they will understand is underwhelming sales after launch as that will hit their bottom line.

FF15 pre order is already cancelled. - This is very likely coming to PC anyway.
Kingdom hearts is undecided but currently i am about 60% cancel 40% not cancel
Disgea pre order cancelled - is out on PC as well anyway
Stopped playing PS4 Zesteria as this news is making me want to puke on my PS4.

Analysing sale values of PS4 on ebay, I think I need to move fast tho as they going to plummet in value when this gets confirmed.

ps. sorry for the typos, headache is making me rush posts more and not bother to proof read.

Edited by Chrysalis (Wed 06-Apr-16 11:34:58)

If they fully support the standard PS4 and continue to bring out plenty of games which are properly optimized then I don't see it as a big deal. Could be as timey said that the upgrade is extra power for VR, that would make sense. Just seems better to me if they waited a few more years and released a new console with much higher specs rather than this mid cycle upgrade.