With Sony’s new system only one day away from its primetime reveal, here’s where one editor stands on mid-generation hardware updates. Check out our other PlayStation Week coverage.
Every console generation starts with a chicken and egg dilemma. The shiny new hardware that emerges into the wild might have high hopes and higher price tags, but it inevitably launches with a games library that’s a mere shadow of the consoles it hopes to replace.
For awhile the trickle of games is slow. Developers don’t want to spend too much money developing for a console that not enough people own, and yet those same people won’t take the plunge until enough games exist on the system.
This situation arises every six years or so, and yet every time the new consoles manage to slowly but surely take off despite this seemingly impossible paradox.
So why do consumers chose to buy a console with no games on it? And why do developers make games for machines that nobody owns?
The answer to both has a little to do with confidence, and a little to do with trust.
And it’s this trust that the PlayStation Neo and Project Scorpio might just break.
A pact made in plastic
It seems like an obvious answer, but people buy consoles not for the games that are already out, but because of the games they expect to release over the coming years.
Gamers trust that manufacturers will continue to support their consoles for at least six years, and they have the confidence that over that time a machine’s software library will continue to grow stronger and stronger.
PC gamers question why anyone would opt to buy a console over the technically superior PC platform, but it’s this continued support that makes the console such a good deal for so many people.
But, mathematically speaking, it makes sense: just one purchase can ensure that someone has access to every game released on that platform for the next six years.
When it works, this process is almost invisible, but when it breaks down, as was the case with Nintendo’s Wii U, a console will flounder and eventually fail.
Lessons from the Wii U
Just over a year ago, swathes of articles were written about how you’d be crazy to not buy a Wii U. Mario Kart 8 was out they said, and so was Super Smash Bros. There was even an excellent Mario game on the system, Super Mario 3D World. Go out and buy a Wii U they said, you’ll love it.
Except people didn’t. They didn’t for the simple reason that outside of a new Legend of Zelda, there were almost no new games to look forward to on the horizon. No new Mario Kart, no new Super Smash Bros, no new Metroid.
The console might have had a strong library in the past, but its future looked uncertain, and people sensed that uncertainty and stayed away.
Scorpio stings gamers
Neither the Xbox One nor the PlayStation 4 have weak games libraries, but the announcement of the 4K Neo and Scorpio systems casts some doubt on their futures.
Both Sony and Microsoft have promised that their existing consoles will continue to be supported alongside the new hardware, but it’s hard not to feel that you won’t be getting the full experience if you opt to play a game developed with the Neo in mind on a launch PS4.
We don’t yet fully know what the gaming implications of the Neo and Scorpio will be, but at the moment it’s hard not to feel betrayed. Gamers bought these consoles because they trusted Sony and Microsoft to support them for six years, and now after four years they’re being superseded for a feature that not every gamer can take advantage of.
Is 4K and HDR worth the trust they’ve lost with gamers? Probably not.
I don’t know if people will buy the Scorpio and Neo in their droves. I don’t know if enough people have 4K televisions to make the upgrade worthwhile, and I don’t know if developers will pay the new hardware enough attention to optimise their games with it in mind.
But what I do know is that when the Xbox Two and PS5 are released people will think twice about whether they represent a solid six-year investment or whether they’ll be superseded by new hardware after just four short years.
A drop from six years to four years might not seem like the biggest difference in the world, but that’s a third of a console’s traditional lifespan.
In other words, from a consumer point of view, the PS5 and Xbox Two may have just lost a third of their perceived value.
Maybe Sony and Microsoft’s experiment with mid-generation console upgrades will be a success. Maybe the PS4 and Xbox One will continue to be the consoles that they always were and the Scorpio and Neo will work to complement rather than replace them.
But maybe this mid-generation switcheroo will be perceived as a betrayal by gamers who have seen their expensive hardware become outdated two years ahead of time.
Source: techradar.com
Top Brands
I grow tired of these articles. For one you are very late with this opinion. Many others have beat you to the punch. You and those who agree with you are starting to sound like Console Luddites.
Peeps buy new phones every 6 to 18 months — why wouldn't they get an upgrade in console every 2-3 years?
Your article is downright deceptive and smacks of someone who is "playing dumb" by being purposefully provocative or you simply are unaware of what is actually going on in the industry. Either way both should disqualify you from being a serious author on a serious website.
Given that Sony and I believe MS have said that both Neo and Scorpio will not "outmode" the current models this philosophy still holds true. Likely it will be a few years before we see Neo / Scorpio exclusive content.
This analogy is utter hogwash. The Wii U suffered from poor product awareness. Many thought Wii U was simply an add on for Wii and as you point out the library never really had the stellar games people were looking for outside a few titles.
If the non-Neo PS4 / non-Scorpio XB1 has the greatest install base a developer would be stupid not to target those specs and provide a few more bells and whistles for the Neo / Scorpio. Economically speaking until the Neo / Scorpio take over as the de facto standard developers will continue to support the first gen PS4 / XB1. Otherwise they won't make money.
You may feel betrayed but if I was you I would feel less betrayed by Sony / Microsoft and more betrayed by your lack of business understanding. There is a great deal of upside to the Neo and Scorpio but you are trying to spin this into some sort of conspiracy theory.
Look at how fast technology evolves now. Most people don't even own the same smart phone for 2 years in a row — why can't Sony / Microsoft capitalize on their early adopters and continually move the ball forward via iteration? This hasn't lead to a crash in the mobile phone market — please explain how you feel the console market is special with unique customer desires that you seemingly know with 100% certainty?
Have you ever stopped to consider that perhaps Sony and Microsoft want to be able to internalize the up-scaling process to the console and not rely on a TV to upscale their 1080p games to 4K? Unless you buy a 4K TV that natively supports 1080p the TV will do the up-scaling. The quality and the performance will vary. If the performance is poor that will add to display lag and make games unplayable. If the quality if poor people will be pissed that their game looks worse than it did last gen.
You also don't seem to understand modern device buyers behaviors either.
Who cares? Apple will release the iPhone 7 and follow it up a year later with iPhone 7s. That doesn't stop people from buying an iPhone. Given how consumer behaviors have evolved in other marketplaces I really don't see much evidence of that.
With both systems being x86 compatible there is really no excuse for the future systems to be backwardly compatible.
Listen you butthurt cock womble. These consoles on release were way underpowered compared to pc gaming. Ps4 and xb1 in their current states are stopping gaming from reaching its potential. Like I said. Your an idiot if you think they will last 5 years. Now go fuck off and cry.
@YRD
The PS3 and Xbox 360 were on the market for more than 5 years. The PS2 available in retail for more than 10 years. The PS1 was taken off the retail store shelves as they PS3 was launching. Sony has always delivered on their console lifespans, Microsoft doesn't have as stellar of a record (the original Xbox turned into the red-headed step child the moment the 360 came out).
You don't seem to have a clue what you are talking about so sit down and take notes.
Sony and MS are not releasing the Neo or the Scorpio to remove the current models of PS and Xbox from the marketplace. Neo and Scorpio will sell along side the earlier gen versions.
Come November these systems will have been on the market for 3 years. It is likely they will survive 2 more Christmases. Worst case scenario the PS4 / Xbox One will make it to 4 years, but the newer systems will overtake the current price point so it won't matter ANYWAYS.
You deserve loosing brain cells.
@DigitalDaniel
My TV is on pace to outlive both my PS3 and PS4.
Knocks on wood.
@sampson3121
The Neo isn't coming this year. E3 would have been the best place for them to release that information and they did not.
You are making wild claims yet providing no evidence to support your point of view. Your opinion seems highly uninformed.
The Xbox One S and the PS4 Neo will both work with all the PS4 / Xbox One library. Some software will feature extra bells and whistles for the Neo / Scorpio crowd but Sony and MS would be stupid to cater to the Neo / Scorpio especially if the install base for the original systems is higher. If Neo / Scorpio are wildly successful and take over the scene it really won't matter.
Not at all both Sony and Microsoft see that the old philosophy of waiting years for new hardware isn't as sustainable as it has been in the past. Every other form of device technology receives hardware refreshes on an annual of biannual basis. Apple hasn't sold any less of the iPhone because people are waiting on the S model.
#stupid
@BelAirBoss
Other companies have a smorgasbord of technical products that are suited for customers of different needs. I don't see why PS4 and Xbox One would be any different.
There would have to be a much larger leap in technology to really make the claim that the Neo / Scorpio would suffer. In terms of computing power the PS4, Xbox One, PS4 Neo and Xbox One Scorpio are all within "spitting distance" of each other. The spec differences will be significant to notice, but I don't think it would be significant enough to expect entirely different type of games out of the updated consoles.
Think of the difference between PS2 and PS3 — now think of the PS3 vs PS4 (not as big of a leap) it will likely be a smaller leap to Neo or Scorpio.
TechRadar have you ran out of ideas, this is a very dull article. Consoles are finally making an attempt to keep up with fast moving improvements of performance that all other tech sectors follow. Updates every 6 years is archaic and out of touch.
The new hardware will be backward compatible with current games, and that makes this entire article mute.
@sampson3121
Who died and made you king?
"Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."
– Obiwan Kenobi
While what you are saying is true you are being quite one-sided. Let's flip the script here.
Let's be honest PC gamers are not getting the full experience now with the current PCs. The developers are not able to optimize the game for every PC out there so PC gamers suffer from games that may or may not perform or look the way the creators envisioned.
PC you have the wide spec of technology, console is very narrow. The advantage to that narrow spec is the actual developers can optimize the game as they want it to be specifically for your CONSOLE. PC gamers will never know that level of polish.
The creators of Killzone 2 on PS3 managed to put more lighting into their game than PC was able to do at the time. Was this due to some constantly growing specifications? NO quite the opposite, they actually programed for the machine and didn't rely on APIs and Game Engines to do the work for them. Which is the benefit to a platform with a narrow spec base. You don't have to code for a bunch of varieties you code for few and you do it WELL.
Again you are being very one sided here. I am not knocking PC either — so please don't take this as a knock against PC, but I am trying to shine some light on some things you don't seem to have considered in your choice of gaming platform.
Consoles for the money provide some of the best quality experiences out there because the developers optimize the experience for the console. Something they simply can't do on PC due to the various amounts of PC hardware. That doesn't mean users don't do a good job of adjusting their system performance. Its just a step that console players don't have to mess with. Something to be said for technology that is "pickup and play".
You realize anyone who played Crysis 3 on consoles likely don't care how it looked on your PC? Crysis was an engine created for PC, able to scale to various spec points. It doesn't come as any surprise to me that it wasn't the best looking engines on consoles. That didn't stop Uncharted 2 and The Last of Us winning Game of the Year from numerous websites and industry groups. Naughty Dog never got the memo that PC was the de facto gaming system.
Well yeah optimization is one thing consoles do better, DX12 and Vulcan should close that gap a lot, in any case, it doesn't really change the experience we get, for the most part it just means we need a little more brute force, the fact still stands that on PC you can run games at 60+ fps, any resolution you want, any controls you want and configurations of controls you want, better visuals, it's better all round and more in line with what the developers want you to se, console gamers get the cut down edition unless the game isn't too demanding.
What you are talking about with KillZone 2 is pass tents, a lot of those issues are gone now on PC and it's the here and now and the future that matters.
I know PC are not quite as simple like consoles are, but there not hard to really use either and are quite cheap now, when Neo and Scorpio are out I only really have to change my gpu in my computer to get more performance for them, on consoles they likely will have to spend $400 to $500, on PC the RX480 today is $200, we're still 17 months off from Scorpio, so upgrading my PC would be cheaper than getting a console upgrade.
I suspect DX12 and Vulcan once games use it properly so in the next year or so will close the gap a lot with console on optimisations so close that even though consoles will be better optimised, it won't matter anymore.
That wasn't really the point I was getting at with Crysis 3, it was how well it scales on such wide range of hardware specs, the same can happen on current gen consoles to the new ones that are on there way, games can scale a lot if done right, with these new consoles that forces developers to get better at that which benefits console games by giving them more choice and PC gamers by pushing games forward and games being better at scaling over hardware meaning more gamers are likely to be able to play there games.
@sampson3121
Who are these gamers that desire news that is at a constant alarmist state? I don't get who these websites are catering to.
…
i rest my case
@IAmFoxGod
Good point the author really can't say for certain WHY people bought a PS4 or Xbox One. That being said he is suggesting that quoted lifespans for the PS4 and Xbox One do not include any hardware iterations. The fact is even if they kept the specs the same the hardware would change, those changes would have to be accounted for in the PS4 API, so WHY NOT improve the hardware if you are going to go to all that trouble to begin with.
I honestly thought that TechRadar was a better website than this uninformed garbage that fear mongers and invents conspiracies.
@thereasoner
You know maybe you and I should be doing our own website.
That wasn't true in previous generations. PS2, PS1 and PS3 (early) were all backwardly compatible. They all used custom hardware making the BC feature fairly expensive. I speculate that once Sony got the PS3 out there it being their first truly "connected" console they were able to tell just how much or how little people used the feature.
In my opinion Backwards Compatibility is a great feature to have but it largely isn't used that much. Sure people will respond to this and say they use it all the time but if that was really a feature that sold systems both PS4 and Xbox One would have had them at launch.
People buy new systems to play new games mostly.
Wow. Finally someone who isn't a gullible idiot.
Reading the comments on this page is seriously depressing.
@wowfood
I think there is at least 1 more generation. I would agree with you 100% if MS's original design for the Xbox One was adopted and successful. The fact that the always digital Xbox One was rejected only showcases this marketplace has more unique needs than other technology based marketplaces.
That wasn't successful for Steam / Valve — why is Microsoft special?
Which really draws into question what is the point of the Xbox division? They are making all their "exclusive" games available for PC. This seems like very odd messaging to me and amounts to telling the consumer you don't need an Xbox One.
Just seems like they are playing the role of a spoiler more than a competitor this generation.
#scorpio
I disagree…especially on the xbox side. 1.3 teraflops compared to 6 teraflops can hardly be considered within "spitting distance". That would be akin to comparing the horsepower of a typical grocery getter to a McLaren P1 GTR.
The fact is that with more power, developers could explore different ways to make their games, with something as simple as having vastly more indoor spaces in a city explorable…but with Microsoft and Sony saying games will be the same across all consoles, much of that power will merely be used to make the game prettier, or perhaps run better in single player, but not functionally different, when in fact the extra horsepower if fully utilized could make the games much more immersive, with the explorable space example being just one of many areas of improvement that could be had.
@Zen777
You offer nothing to the conversation with the exception of declaring people wrong, yet we are the gullible idiots?
Why don't you learn how to put forth a compelling argument and come back when you figured out how to use that gray matter between your ears. Your comments are woefully inadequate.
The wording in this article is so bitter and dramatic. The console is not your wife, your lover, your family. Talking about a pact in plastic and how this should last 6 years or else they've broken their trust and so on…
Technology is going at a faster pace than before and all Microsoft and Sony are doing is paying attention to this so they don't get left behind.
6 year cycle is dead and thank goodness for that. Why should my console outlive my TV?
Nobody should complain as the new models are luxury upgrades, no one gets left behind. Your regular PS4/Xbox One won't all of the sudden have games with poor graphics. On the contrary, now they will aim higher so optimization will be a must on base models.
I have been convinced that this will be the final console generation (as we know it) for a while now, and this has done nothing to sway that.
I can't help but think that Microsoft are angling to go the SteamBox route, now that they have crossbuy coming soon, so you can buy xbone games and play on both console and PC, they're effectively making their own windows only games rig where you can go for the custom built PC option, or purchase the xBox which would be the self contained console version. If this is the case it'd make sense to have more incremental updates.
@marcyff2
I don't think MS has ever had backwards compatibility. I don't recall X360 being backward compatible.
PS3 fat had full hardware emulation (PS2 chips built on the board). PS3 later did software emulation (wasn't nearly as good).
I think the Xbox One is the first Xbox Console that has compatibility and that is very limited compatibility which seems to be driven by MS and the publisher as to which games are Xbox One compatible.