Greetings. This blog is a follow up to the first one I did about how Sony has some of the most blind defenders in the entire industry. This blog, however, will mostly be answering some counter statements to my previous blog, and expanding on some aspects. For reference purposes, please read the first blog (and continue the hate) by following the link below.
Now then, the first thing I'm going to do is address a particular mindset about my previous blog.
First, just because I am discussing Neo, doesn't mean I am lending credence to sources claiming it exists. As of right now, Neo doesn't exist. It is rumour, it is conjecture, it is speculation. If I disparage any source trying to claim that Neo is real, and that source is NOT Sony themselves, it's because said source deserves to be disparaged because they are trying to peddle second or even third hand information as though it were first hand confirmation. So, do remember, Giantbomb is NOT Sony. Trying to talk about Neo as though Sony have made official statements via Giantbomb makes you look like an idiot and I quite frankly don't care if you don't like that I say that. The majority of defenders of Neo on this site are acting like Sony have officially announced it, and the rhetoric is damn near religious.
Second, yes I have generalized a lot. I had to. Have you seen the sheer number of people here defending Neo? You want specifics then you're asking me to quote mine hundreds of people. I'm not Rookie_Monster.
Finally, I understand that PC gamers have a unique perspective on this matter. The concept of a Neo is nothing new to them as the PC market is, by its very nature, a segmented market. This means that their reactions and expectations, and the consequences of a Neo, are fundamentally different when viewed through the eyes of someone who already deals with segmentation all the time.
Now then, onto some "counter arguments."
First, this argument....
"Sony seems committed to keeping the NEO and the original PS4 player bases connected. As such, there will be no NEO-only games, and Sony will not let developers separate NEO users from original PS4 players while playing on PSN"
I want you all to pay attention to something. Something important. When you read that statement, what do you see? You see the fact that segmentation is already a considered reality of releasing Neo. Assuming all of this information is correct, Sony already knew that this would segment the user base. That alone should be enough for me to say but I have to continue because it won't be enough for the blind defenders.
There are a few things to consider. Third party developers, resources, and optimization.
Third party developers are not beholden to Sony. They will make the games they can make with the resources available to them, and Sony will not be stupid enough to say "nah, we don't want more games on our platform." Devs already speak out about why certain games do not appear on certain platforms, you can be damned sure they wouldn't be shy about saying "well, our game isn't coming to Playstation because we don't have the resources for it with the release of Neo.
Then there is optimization to consider, which is part of another counter argument. This supposed idea that Neo will simply offer graphical settings akin to how games work on the PC market. Putting aside the fact that anyone who uses this argument must necessarily understand that they have made a case for segmentation, as that is the very nature of the PC market, there is still a big difference. PC development makes games at the best possible settings and allows for scaling down. The nature of PC gaming obviously allows for upscaling, but that's not ideal and usually comes with sacrifices. Because PC gaming has so many different configurations, it's practically impossible to optimize a game so devs simply let the sheer brute power of gaming rigs to do that for them. This wouldn't be the case with Neo. If the rumours are accurate, then a base version would be created and Neo would upscale. How often has upscaling been a pleasant experience over native? Most of the time the people on this site view upscaling as lazy. Don't believe me? Go into any graphics comparison article from the start of the previous gen right up until today comparing Xbox to Playstation and then tell me that no one says stuff like "1080p upscaled is terrible compared to native 1080p"
We've all seen the defenses before. Why I remember Christopher had a discussion with a user who seemed to suggest that upscaling was just as good as native, and Christopher's reply was a sarcastic one, and I'm paraphrasing here, about how if upscaling is just as good, then no games should even bother to be made at a native 1080p or greater resolution. This stuff happens all the time, and yet now that Sony is rumoured to be making an upsaler console, suddenly upscaling is the best thing ever? And if you try to come back with some kind of "it won't be like that" argument, then you're basically arguing for 2 versions of one game, proving my overall point once again.
So another argument that I've seen a lot is "well cellphones update every year, why shouldn't consoles. Cellphones shouldn't be more powerful than consoles."
Anyone making this argument is being purposely asinine and ridiculous.
Yes, cellphones update every year. Cellphones don't have to update every year, but they do. Cellphones are also prohibitively expensive on their own, that's WHY they update every year. The PS3 was $600 at launch and Sony was hammered for that price. iPhone's go for around $800 and people consider having one as a status symbol. When consoles are made, they are made with certain considerations. The highest possible power output at the lowest possible price. This is because gaming consoles are NOT meant to act as status symbols, they are NOT meant to reflect the current level of ever evolving technology. They were designed as, and have always served the function of being, home arcade devices that everyone could afford. In fact this cellphone argument could be analogous to saying "Arcade cabinets improve all the time, why shouldn't the SNES?"
This argument is steeped in graphics whoring. It comes from insecure gamers who are jealous of PC gaming but don't want to spend the money to get into it, while ignoring that that very penny pinching nature is why the home console industry was even created. Graphics whoring is destroying the industry as devs do nothing more than pushing pixels and polygons to shut up the most vain, superficial demographic of gamers. The truth is, if you want consoles to mimic cellphones then you're either going to have to be happy with $1000 consoles, or submitting to contracts that will subsidize the cost. And with how vehement console gamers were about things such as privacy and keeping big business out of their lives, I doubt that gamers would want to be hypocrites and start agreeing to contract terms to own a home console. But then again, the blind defense of this is so massive, I'm probably wrong.
The next argument is the "what if some people just like it" argument. That's barely even worth responding to. People like a lot of things they shouldn't. They support a lot of things that are bad for them. That's just human nature. There's also a difference between finding something intriguing, and vociferously defending it even while it exists as mere rumour. People are trying to tout this as an "option" and "options are good." You know what else is an option? Microtransactions. Have microtransactions benefited the industry, or have they simply lined the pockets of greedy publishers who use that money to make more microtransactions for future games? People have made similar arguments about microtransactions that they are Neo, but you'll be hard pressed to find a gamer who enjoys the idea of unlockables and other aspects of games being purposely difficult to achieve in order to incentivize the purchase of microtransaction goods. Do you really believe that Sony would spend money on a Neo and NOT do everything they could to incentivize purchasing it over the base PS4 model? You think they want Neo to go the way of the PS Camera or PSP Go? Those were "options" to, and look at what happened to them. That fact also answers the counter argument that "well there are 40+ million PS4s out there that Sony won't just abandon." You're right, they won't, but it doesn't mean they'll throw the same support behind 40+ million consoles already bought as they will the prospect of making even more money on a newer console. You think cellphone companies are looking to entice existing customers, or are they looking to attract more new ones for a bigger steady stream of cash?
Now I want to move on to a matter of hypocrisy. See, Sony hasn't been the only company rumoured to be making this kind of move, nor have they been the first. Microsoft was rumoured to be making a similar move with a console the community dubbed Xbox One Next. The reactions should be expected. Microsoft hinting at upgradeable consoles is met with, at best tepid intrigue, at the realist it's met with derision. But if Sony does it, all's well and good.
This here is one of the best articles on N4G to illustrate a divide, and consequently Septic's claivoyance.
Or, and I have to use a gamingbolt article for this but only for the comments section here on N4G.... this.
And that's just a tip of the iceberg. The hypocrisy is maddening.
Look, if it's ok for Sony to release Neo (which it isn't), it should have always been ok for Phil Spencer to talk about yearly Xbox consoles. If it's not ok for one then it's not ok for the other.
These businesses are treating you all like fools. They dangle a shiny new carrot and you try to bite no matter what.
Real fans are not those who think every move is the best move ever. They are the ones calling out the B.S. when needed so that companies like Sony or Microsoft don't grow complacent and arrogant. We got Microsoft to remove Kinect, used games DRM, 24 hour check-ins, and an over reliance on Sports and TV with the Xbox One. We did that by calling them out on their B.S. and deriding those who thought the DRM crap was a good idea. That sparked a POSITIVE change for the Xbox One. A change that wouldn't have happened otherwise. We have that opportunity to do so again, with both PS4 and Xbox One.
How many of us here are always critical of the mobile gaming market, and yet now championing what some are actually calling a move that is "just like mobile gaming?"
Defend everything, be responsible for the worst corporations can throw at us. We've allowed on disc, day one DLC. We've allowed day one patches and the release of unfinished games. We've allowed microtransactions, Destiny, and The Division. You want to allow consoles to go the way of mobile gaming too?