Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/34869/Sony_Reduces_Investment_Cost_For_PlayStation_4.phpl

your thoughts.

My thoughts: Nintendo scared 'em.

Originally posted by ScreamPaste
My thoughts: Nintendo scared 'em. yep Sony's cornered now. The thought of a hardcore nintendo console pretty much shook everybody.

Umm seriously,

Everybody knows that MS and Sony are working on their next console, way before Nintendo released information for their next.

The article is basically saying, "our next console will be cheaper to produce".

Do we think Sony is scared of Nintendo? Probably not.

And really, lets wait till Nintendo can produce a great "hardcore" system before it shakes the industry. People have short term memories because the Wii is the first Nintendo console to be labelled as a "casual" system even though that label came to the system after the Wii was released.

Yes indeed- the news here isn't that a console is being developed, it is that they are changing the funding strategy.

And whilst it is very possible that Nintendo's faster schedule is putting pressure on the others to hurry their next release up (though there is only so much faster that can be done), I would guess this has more to do with the 'massive up-front investment' model for the PS3 not having actually worked very well.

In my opinion, Sony screwed up royally by releasing the PS3 while the PS2 had a lot of potential left in it.

Were they to make the same mistake by releasing a PS4 before the PS3 becomes truly "last gen", then it would be utter folly.

Sony Banking On New Super Fast Cell Processor For PS4 & Bravia TV

Originally posted by Impediment
In my opinion, Sony screwed up royally by releasing the PS3 while the PS2 had a lot of potential left in it.

Were they to make the same mistake by releasing a PS4 before the PS3 becomes truly "last gen", then it would be utter folly.

That's not the reason they screwed up.

They screwed up because they thought people would automatically buy the PS3 no matter what the cost was because they bought the PS2. They were also pretty damn arrogant too.

The PS2 was old when the PS3 was released. Considering the 360 was out a year before, the release date for the PS3 was perfectly alright. The PS2 was "last gen" by that time.

But I do agree if they release the PS4 before the PS3 is up, I think it would be a bad idea. I believe that the PS3 can still create gorgeous games for the next few years before the need to upgrade. I also think the same with the 360.

The next gen consoles, I don't really see a reason for them right now. Graphics can get better but I don't have any complaints on what games look right now.

The PS3 is still churning out the best console-graphics we've seen so far (Uncharted 2 etc), so I can see no justification for bringing out a new PS console before it starts to look dated. Nintendo are allowed to go to the next console as the Wii is already last-gen when it comes to graphics and online capabilities.

Originally posted by Morridini
The PS3 is still churning out the best console-graphics we've seen so far (Uncharted 2 etc), so I can see no justification for bringing out a new PS console before it starts to look dated. Nintendo are allowed to go to the next console as the Wii is already last-gen when it comes to graphics and online capabilities.
I completely agree.

Even though Nintendo sold more than the other consoles, the Wii is inferior to BOTH the 360 and PS3.

It does not offer the superb on-line service of the 360 NOR the stunning graphics of the PS3.

Wii may be bang-for-the-buck at the initial launch BUT in the long run, the PS3 and the 360 gives you more value for money, since both consoles still produce great titles with excellent replay value and DL content. The PS3 can even be used as alternative for stand-alone Bluray player.

Besides Wii Sports (it's not even that decent of a game concept... you can do all those sports IN REAL LIFE. Lmfao), there's nothing that the Wii can offer that their competitors can not.

Kinect and Move are both better than the Wii-mote.
And LBP is better than any 'casual' game the Wii has come up with.

With regards to PS4 release, I don't see a reason why they should make a new console, since the PS3 is still the most powerful console available in the market.

You do realize that R and D for the new PS would require many, many years to do so.

It doesn't make financial sense to release a new console is the next 2-3 years, no matter what Nintendo does.

The videogame market has increased considerably to a point where multiple product can exist and make profit. The idea behind console wars is done in my opinion.

I just hope the PS4 is a lil bit more "convenient" in the obvious areas this time around. I found the PS3 to be an amazinlgly powerful console that dropped the ball in some annoyin ways.

http://crave.cnet.co.uk/gamesgear/playstation-4-complete-guide-50006003/

Sound awesome....

This:
J_fbvW0RNjw

Ehhh. Those two pictures don't impress me that much; not nearly as awesome as they make it out to be. The bottom one just looks too fake - they still have quite some way to go with making light react with surfaces and create realistic shadows properly.

Also, gameplay > graphics. Every time.

I'm excited to see what the ps4 will bring to the table, but, like others, I think that the ps3 has a ways to go before it is finished. As for the nintendo's console...I think it is a bad Idea, and don't think it will really do much as far as competition. Making the controller able to continue the game when you leave the tv is an excellent idea...only problem is, not everyone will need that option, and the controller will be much more expensive (most likely), and sony already has that idea taken care of, and theirs is optional. If you WANT to be able to play games on your console when you leave it, you can transfer to the ps vita. Sure it's pretty expensive, but it isn't a fundamental part of the console either, so it is optional.

Originally posted by Smasandian
That's not the reason they screwed up.

They screwed up because they thought people would automatically buy the PS3 no matter what the cost was because they bought the PS2. They were also pretty damn arrogant too.

The PS2 was old when the PS3 was released. Considering the 360 was out a year before, the release date for the PS3 was perfectly alright. The PS2 was "last gen" by that time.

But I do agree if they release the PS4 before the PS3 is up, I think it would be a bad idea. I believe that the PS3 can still create gorgeous games for the next few years before the need to upgrade. I also think the same with the 360.

The next gen consoles, I don't really see a reason for them right now. Graphics can get better but I don't have any complaints on what games look right now.

QFT.

Also I think the rumored next-gen xbox for 2012 is a bad move. If I were 1 of the brains in Sony/Microsoft game consoles divisions I'd at least wait a bit after the Wii-U is released.

Yeah... That would've been the more sensible approach.

Originally posted by Peach
Ehhh. Those two pictures don't impress me that much; not nearly as awesome as they make it out to be. The bottom one just looks too fake - they still have quite some way to go with making light react with surfaces and create realistic shadows properly.

Also, gameplay > graphics. Every time.

well, next gen it's all about the graphics it seems, the only difference between current gen and PC is the graphics, I still have to see a game that cannot be run on consoles.

So, excluding Nintendo, Next Gen is pure graphics.

And the pictures are awesome, it's not flashy, it's subtle, and that makes for a more realistic graphics than neon lights and reflective surfaces

You have nothing to base that opinion on.

It's assumed that graphics will be a big issue because why wouldn't it be but I suspect next gen consoles for Sony and MS will also be about complete media centres, social networking and a better system for digital distribution.

Originally posted by Smasandian
You have nothing to base that opinion on.

It's assumed that graphics will be a big issue because why wouldn't it be but I suspect next gen consoles for Sony and MS will also be about complete media centres, social networking and a better system for digital distribution.

I have developers like Crytek to based that opinion on.

besides a better digital distribution (I'm currenlty happy with how it's handled now but there's room for improvement), I see no other real reason for a new crop of consoles.

The PS3 is already a great media center, even when it was mocked by many including members in this forum, for focusing on that. The 360 has caught on that as well

A new gen it's mostly to keep up with current PC graphical performances, they are bringing close to nothing new in terms of gameplay innovation. like I said mention a PC game that can't properly run on PS360, besides the graphical differences.

Nintendo is the one with most to gain with a new console, besides they've yet to implement a half decent online service (both on distribution and gameplay options)

I'm not saying graphics are everything, but with current PC, a new gen of consoles seems to be about it.

Why are you surprised that next gen consoles are all about graphics?

It's been like that since the beginning.

What's the point of releasing a new console or any device if it doesn't improve from the previous device. The only way to improve is to have better graphics. Anything else can be implemented by software which can be downloaded through their network. (unless the software is too resource intensive, which means better hardware)

It is too early. They should live up to their "10 years life consoles" claims.

I do agree it's too early. In two years, I can understand MS replacing their console.

Originally posted by Smasandian
Why are you surprised that next gen consoles are all about graphics?

It's been like that since the beginning.

What's the point of releasing a new console or any device if it doesn't improve from the previous device. The only way to improve is to have better graphics. Anything else can be implemented by software which can be downloaded through their network. (unless the software is too resource intensive, which means better hardware)

Your missing my point and I'm not surprised at all.

Talk about new consoles at this point is Originally posted by S_D_J
...all about the graphics it seems...

The only way to improve is not only and just about graphics. Games are so much more than that, Crysis with all its beauty and hard-to-run-at-max-specs thing is a shooter barely above mediocre... at best

... unless you're talking about the only way next gen can improve upon current gen is graphics wise, in which case I agree, just as my original post says

I'm not against a new generation of consoles, the thing is that:
Originally posted by Zack Fair
It is too early. They should live up to their "10 years life consoles" claims.

a late 2014 onwards could be a good start date.

the boom of news about new consoles is just due to Nintendo's 2012 launch, and it's gain this much attention become some developers not clever enough to come out with something original and innovative can't think of anything to improve, besides graphics... and of course there's those dumb "games analysts"

and before my post gets taken out of context, yes R&D needs to be going underway this early on and I say they should take their sweet time with it (specially MS if they don't want another RRoD debacle)... but some may say they feel threaten by Nintendo's Wii2

I'm confused?

I thought we were talking about next gen consoles?

But your talking about games?

aren't consoles about games?

The conversation was about the console hardware not the software.

couldnt care less. Ive been a hardcore gamer al my life but ill be sitting out the next console race/war. I hate nintendo, MS cant manufacture a game console, and Sony, well, im not paying five hundred dollars for a console during a single transaction

Originally posted by Smasandian
The conversation was about the console hardware not the software.

I'm talking about new console (hardware), games are inherent to the conversation, specially when talking about graphics

Yes but just because they're is new hardware doesn't necessarily mean that games will just be about graphics.

Has that been the case every generation? Maybe at the start but not all the time.

then why are we having this conversation if we are agreeing on the same thing?

I have no idea.

Originally posted by Peach
Also, gameplay > graphics. Every time.

For some.

Not for me. It is both. Crappy graphics with excellent gameplay? It is not as fun.


Improve the graphics and keep that awesome gameplay? Awesome combination.


In fact, some games have done decently specifically because of their "oooooo" and "ahhhhhh" graphics.


Of course, the "name some" comes to mind. What I name no one will agree with. They will claim it had great gameplay. I disagree. I just don't think a sweeping statement like "gameplay >graphics everytime" is a good position.

The consoles of today is nothing compared to the PC.
Never was, never will be.
PCs will ALWAYS be superior to ANY console.

IMHO, the graphics of consoles of this generation are inferior in this day and age.
Now we are in 2011, when quad-core smartphones are being developed, and when PCs are running in 32-cores (even 64-cores).
And here we have a console with 8-cores and STILL reigns supreme (graphically) amongst the other consoles.

If Sony can produce the PS4 with more cores than the PS3, it will be at least 'future-proof' for the next 4 years.
All they need now is to find a better GPU and switch from HDD to SSD.

I don't think switching to SSD will be much of great idea.

To my knowledge, and correct if I'm wrong, the difference between speed is marginal (though that depends on the hardware, but in case of a PS3, it is) Taking into account storage capacity and price, an HDD is, for the time being, better.

now if you allow me to switch out the SDD and use any HDD just like you can with the PS3 then I have no problem

or by the time they come out, SDD are standard and therefore cheaper (and not cost $150 for 120GB)

Originally posted by S_D_J
I don't think switching to SSD will be much of great idea.

I agree but for different reasons than you.

Originally posted by S_D_J
To my knowledge, and correct if I'm wrong, the difference between speed is marginal (though that depends on the hardware, but in case of a PS3, it is) Taking into account storage capacity and price, an HDD is, for the time being, better.

You're wrong.


I have done literal testing on SSDs drives. The type of testing that you do in controlled environments and you publish to your university. However, our work never got forwarded on to a tech website or magazine we are are still "unpublished".

But, basically, we did this:


We tested 3 hard disk drives (the best of the best at the time) against 2 SSDs (the best of the best at the time). RAID 0 was not allowed because that would add an additional layer of variable: the RAID controller would have to be controlled for and that would have added too much to the testing to do in a timely manner.


We ran multiple tests including multiple operating systems, multiple configurations to each OS, and multiple software programs. It was about 60 pages long (lol) and had dozens of hours of work from each of us, put into it (almost 600 total man hours involved in the project).


The results: for Windows 7 had the fastest results on the SSDs (our research showed that it was due to Windows 7 making better use of the SSDs and PCI-x drivers being optimized for Windows...due to it being on the majority of computers. They were from twice as fast to 3 times as fast as the fastest HDDs. We used bootloader software to ensure we had exact measurements of the boot time FROM the drive. We wanted to eliminate the POST associated with the motherboards so we could get an exact measure of the work done by the drives themselves.


We tested both an S3 connected SSD and a PCI-x (2.x...since our study, we could have tried the 3.x format but we did not have enough funds to purchase that and the motherboards were novelties at that point...and the standard wasn't official yet so we could not say for sure IF we used the 3.x format that it would be "real world"...similar to the USB 3.0 spec not being official for a couple of years) card interface.

The card interface was MONSTROUSLY faster. It was STUPID fast. Basically, we overloaded Windows 7 with 15 different programs IN The start-up folder. This would make the fastest of fast computers take up to 5 minutes (considering some of the programs or files were hundreds of megs in size and the total size of the items that had to load up into memory were several gigs) if using a HDD. It took almost exactly 22 seconds each and everytime (you may ask yourself...why was it almost the same exact time, everytime? The beauty of SSDs is they do not need to be defragged because there's no moving head). TWENTY TWO SECONDS! This was more than a year ago with the 2.x format. It should be between that and twice as fast on a 3.x interface. Coming awake from sleep was the largest different: 7 seconds.


Seven freaking seconds to come awake in Windows 7 on a "fat" setup.


There is a myth and it is many years old, that SSDs are only marginally better than HDDs. That myth has been destroyed since around 2008 with the Intel based algorithms used in SSD memory writing and read processes. We had to justify our findings with some sort of explanation and that was it.


In our video rendering test, the results were limited by how fast other media could be. When we switched the files onto the SSD instead of the blu-ray player, it sped up the rendering much faster (HD video conversion). So, it was the Blu-ray drive that slowed it down, not the SSD itself. This is part of where the myth comes form: people will think their SSD is not faster than their HDD but they do not realize it is the USB or ROM drive that is the problem: not the internal storage.

Originally posted by S_D_J
now if you allow me to switch out the SDD and use any HDD just like you can with the PS3 then I have no problem

Wait...this is with the PS3?

I thought you were talking about a potential configuration for the PS4 since that was what the other dude was talking about. Why would you care about a SSD in your PS3? It's a waste: your interface has to be faster, not the drive itself (which it looks like you are saying).

Originally posted by S_D_J
or by the time they come out, SDD are standard and therefore cheaper (and not cost $150 for 120GB)

This is supposed to happen in 2012: the pricing per gig is trending, slowly, and according to the market research, the price per gig is supposed to reach the same levels as it is for HDDs.


However, I find that to be misleading. That's for the cheapest of cheap. Those have slower than HDDs in performance in some areas. We need the mid-range SSDs to surpass the HDDs in price before we can say they are the same price per gig.

Originally posted by dadudemon

You're wrong.


I have done literal testing on SSDs drives...



I was referring to a test done with the PS3, in which the difference didn't merit the effort.

but yeah, I haven't really read much about SSDs, so nice to read about the tests. Didn't know about the BR slowing things down

my main problem it's price and storage room

Originally posted by dadudemon

Wait...this is with the PS3?

I thought you were talking about a potential configuration for the PS4 since that was what the other dude was talking about. Why would you care about a SSD in your PS3? It's a waste: your interface has to be faster, not the drive itself (which it looks like you are saying).



not taking about the PS3 there

I mean let me change my PS4 drive at my heart content just like I can do it with a PS3,

Proprietary drives are so expensive *Looks at M$*

I really hope they don't go that way next gen, though they're already trying to screw you with an unnecessary proprietary memory card for the Vita

Originally posted by dadudemon

This is supposed to happen in 2012: the pricing per gig is trending, slowly, and according to the market research, the price per gig is supposed to reach the same levels as it is for HDDs.


God willing!, I hope that's true

Originally posted by dadudemon

However, I find that to be misleading. That's for the cheapest of cheap. Those have slower than HDDs in performance in some areas. We need the mid-range SSDs to surpass the HDDs in price before we can say they are the same price per gig.

True dat!

Originally posted by dadudemon
I agree but for different reasons than you.


What are those reasons?

Originally posted by S_D_J
What are those reasons?

With something like a nexgen console, we need a current gen interface of the SSD. That would drive the cost of the PS4 up. We don't need that.


So it is not looking like a reasonable thing to do. Unless, of course, we can get PCI-X 3.x speeds withOUT the costs. Meaning, Sony makes a great deal with a manufacturer without compromising quality. That COULD happen in the next year or two. So, we cannot totally rule out that a SSD drive with PCI-X 3.x speed will be released.


The other reason was one I provided in my post: the cost per gig has to equal or be better than HDD for the mid-rangers, at the LEAST. That is possible by 2013...maybe even 2014. So we cannot totally rule it out of the question for Sony in 2014.


So my two reasons are: interface being too slow or too expensive and the cost per gig being unreasonable for a decently performing SSD.

@ Dadudemon

You're such a nerd

I agree, the biggest factor about SSD is the price.
You can get HDDs cheaper than half the price with more storage capacity.

Durability-wise, I see the SSD as a better alternative though, since it has no moving parts.



Another thing consoles should focus on is the SIZE.
I think it would be great if manufacturers develop a console as small as the Mac Mini.

Originally posted by dadudemon
For some.

Not for me. It is both. Crappy graphics with excellent gameplay? It is not as fun.


Improve the graphics and keep that awesome gameplay? Awesome combination.


In fact, some games have done decently specifically because of their "oooooo" and "ahhhhhh" graphics.


Of course, the "name some" comes to mind. What I name no one will agree with. They will claim it had great gameplay. I disagree. I just don't think a sweeping statement like "gameplay >graphics everytime" is a good position.

And yet terrible gameplay covered up with shiny graphics is just...gold-plated garbage. Graphics can make a good game better, but they can't make a bad game good.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
The consoles of today is nothing compared to the PC.
Never was, never will be.
PCs will ALWAYS be superior to ANY console.

IMHO, the graphics of consoles of this generation are inferior in this day and age.
Now we are in 2011, when quad-core smartphones are being developed, and when PCs are running in 32-cores (even 64-cores).
And here we have a console with 8-cores and STILL reigns supreme (graphically) amongst the other consoles.

If Sony can produce the PS4 with more cores than the PS3, it will be at least 'future-proof' for the next 4 years.
All they need now is to find a better GPU and switch from HDD to SSD.

32 and 64-cores? Are you a time-traveler from the future? Quad cores are more or less still the norm, though 6 and even 8-cores exist(there are CPUs with even higher core counts than that, but they aren't for your average end-user). Actually, X360 has the highest core count of the current-gen consoles, which is 3.

It's all about the graphics chip.

It's the same on PC. My CPU is 4-5 years old but my GPU is brand new and I can most games at highest settings. It's all about the GPU.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
32 and 64-cores? Are you a time-traveler from the future? Quad cores are more or less still the norm, though 6 and even 8-cores exist(there are CPUs with even higher core counts than that, but they aren't for your average end-user). Actually, X360 has the highest core count of the current-gen consoles, which is 3.
Haha. I was just exagerrating/semi-trolling.

There are 12-core and 16-core Macs available in the market.

BTW, the PS3 has 8-cores vs X360's 3-cores.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
Haha. I was just exagerrating/semi-trolling.

There are 12-core and 16-core Macs available in the market.

BTW, the PS3 has 8-cores vs X360's 3-cores.

I would love to see one of these Macs. Maybe they have dual-CPUs or some crazy shit like that.

PS3 has 1 core and 7 SPEs(1 of which is redundant), but those can hardly be called cores.

Originally posted by Peach
And yet terrible gameplay covered up with shiny graphics is just...gold-plated garbage. Graphics can make a good game better, but they can't make a bad game good.

Here's the problem: I cannot think of a game that went overboard with graphics but utterly failed with the gameplay. It is "passable" at worst. This is why I cannot see your "every time" statement holding true "every time". In fact, it is almost not every time.

Gameplay is crap if you have a crap visual. Do not take that out of context, either: most of the old games were crap, when I was a kid because of the graphics. Utter and complete crap. Nothing has changed since I got older. Some games have an artistic visual that do not require millions of pixels: it works.


I will never hold the stance that gameplay beats out graphics every time. It is both. I must have both.


Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
32 and 64-cores? Are you a time-traveler from the future? Quad cores are more or less still the norm, though 6 and even 8-cores exist(there are CPUs with even higher core counts than that, but they aren't for your average end-user). Actually, X360 has the highest core count of the current-gen consoles, which is 3.

You're correct based on the terms.

Originally posted by Smasandian
It's all about the graphics chip.

It's the same on PC. My CPU is 4-5 years old but my GPU is brand new and I can most games at highest settings. It's all about the GPU.

Actually, it's not. It is a combination of the memories (CPU, RAM) and the graphics capabilities (discrete or integrated).


Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
I would love to see one of these Macs. Maybe they have dual-CPUs or some crazy shit like that.

PS3 has 1 core and 7 SPEs(1 of which is redundant), but those can hardly be called cores.

This guy knows.


It's a cell processor, not a multi-core processor. Different architectures.

Hmm, still think GPU's make the difference between good and great graphics.

That's why everybody upgrades their GPU's whenever they want to play the next best thing in graphics.

Originally posted by Smasandian
Hmm, still think GPU's make the difference between good and great graphics.

That's not right all the time, however. Sometimes, the difference is simply upgrading RAM or replacing your motherboard and CPU.

Originally posted by Smasandian
That's why everybody upgrades their GPU's whenever they want to play the next best thing.

And they are idiots if they do that.

What you see on the screen is a combination of the CPU, the OS, the game, and the graphics card.


Putting the latest and greatest card will do you shit if the rest of your computer is not up to the task.

Well, if your using an ancient CPU then yes, a video card won't make a huge difference.

But if your using anything in the last 4 years and you have a new video card, it will be fine.

But vice versa, if your using a crappy video card with a top of the line CPU, it's basically useless.

I know this because I did the exact same thing. I put in a new 560 Ti and now the games I have trouble playing with the old one are magically doing better.

Originally posted by Smasandian
Well, if your using an ancient CPU then yes, a video card won't make a huge difference.

Let's go with a motherboard CPU combo of 3 years and older.

Originally posted by Smasandian
But if your using anything in the last 4 years and you have a new video card, it will be fine.

If you're using a CPU motherboard combo from 4 years ago, the video improvement will be minimal.

Originally posted by Smasandian
But vice versa, if your using a crappy video card with a top of the line CPU, it's basically useless.

Not at all. The burden is then shifted onto the CPU. If you have a suficientlly awesome CPU, then you can put out quite the resolution and frame rate. The graphics card, however, gives us some of the additional video goodies like special textures and shading.

The entire reason for discrete graphics is to take some of the burden off of the CPU and shift it to the GPU. It is still burdened, however: it still processes quite a bit to put up a pretty picture.

Originally posted by Smasandian
I know this because I did the exact same thing. I put in a new 560 Ti and now the games I have trouble playing with the old one are magically doing better.

This is simply a case of a decent CPU and motherboard having an underpowered graphics card.

Hmm, still see a difference when I put the new video card in. Didn't change anything else.