Playstation 4 Officially Confirmed As In Development By Sony

[SuperShouden]

Nothing. I am, however, assured you're misunderstanding what 'logical' means in this context; it has nothing to do with validity or reasoning. Logical, in this context, means a virtual core, or better still, a thread. Look up Hyperthreading and that's basically the gist of what a logical core is.

Oh. You mean PPEs (Power Processing Elements) and SPEs (Synergistic Processing Elements). PPEs being the logical core and SPEs being a virtual core. Like Intel's Quad Core processor has 4 PPEs where as the Cell has 8 SPEs on a single PPE. But yeah. There is talk about Sony being able to squeeze 16 SPEs out of the cell, since Sony is working to shrink the Cell from 90nm to 32nm. If they shrink it to 32nm, then they could use 16 SPEs and still use the same amount of power as the 90nm Cell.

But...Sony was talking about the Cell being able to pool resources and with cloud technology...that should, in theory, be possible. Where, instead of connecting directly to a network, you connect to a cloud server that pools the resources of the PS3s on the cloud server, increasing the game performance AND overall stability of the network connection. Doing something like that could virtually eliminate lag. But...I don't know. I mean, the Cell was designed to do it, but I think the practice is a little harder to work out than the theory.

 

[Terronium-12]

Oh. You mean PPEs (Power Processing Elements) and SPEs (Synergistic Processing Elements). PPEs being the logical core and SPEs being a virtual core. Like Intel's Quad Core processor has 4 PPEs where as the Cell has 8 SPEs on a single PPE. But yeah. There is talk about Sony being able to squeeze 16 SPEs out of the cell, since Sony is working to shrink the Cell from 90nm to 32nm. If they shrink it to 32nm, then they could use 16 SPEs and still use the same amount of power as the 90nm Cell.

But...Sony was talking about the Cell being able to pool resources and with cloud technology...that should, in theory, be possible. Where, instead of connecting directly to a network, you connect to a cloud server that pools the resources of the PS3s on the cloud server, increasing the game performance AND overall stability of the network connection. Doing something like that could virtually eliminate lag. But...I don't know. I mean, the Cell was designed to do it, but I think the practice is a little harder to work out than the theory.

Not quite, but you've got the gist of it.

All the SPEs are physical (meaning they're logical) and are, as far as I know, RISC processors...meaning they're co-processors for the most part, and are wholly controlled by the PPE. The PPE can multithread, however. Don't confuse yourself with the "PPE" and "SPE" nomenclature though. Simply put, it's one main processor controlling several others that aid the primary where it falls short. C2Q is four independent cores (logical) on one die, no hyperthreading. Sandy Bridge, specifically the 980X is a six-core CPU but each logical core can have up to one additional thread, making it an 8 (16) core CPU.

Stop talking so I can shut up and stop geeking.

 

[Luminis]

@ Luminis

Sure it will be hard for Nintendo it bring a kind of suprise like the Wii was, and it would have to be a totally different surprise because all those casual players are now onto the next fad which is app games, but I really think if they once again think a bit wacky they can still find a gimmick within the new hardcore target market that offers something unique that draws people it will be a success. There is still many more things that could be exploited or improved in that segment... things like Virtual and Augmented reality are hot technologies at the moment and as they improve its something Nintendo might want to look at for their next 'hook'. If third party dev's are impressed then the whole thing could roll into a success once again.

Yeah, that's why I said it could become a success, but it'll never ever be a Wii-like success. That was a one-hit wonder and it's obviously not coming back. Moreover, the whole 'wacky' stuff has, so far, never really caught on for the hardcore market, has it?
Things like augmented reality are cool and all, I simply can't see that doing anything for the hardcore gamers, much like the reaction I've seen so far to Forza incorporating Kinect...

As for motion I feel that Sony and MS should have not jumped on that bandwagon because it was a rash decision made on the back of the Wii's stellar performance and they needed a slice of the causal pie and quick. Now that they have actually gone and done it most don't really care anymore which is why I think Kinect and particularly Move will not becoming back for the next gen, it was too little too late in my opinion. I think they should be thinking about the next hot thing, probably like what Nintendo is thinking about right now.

That 'next hot thing' is already underway for MS and Sony, right now, and it's actually PSN and XBL, I think. That'll probably develop further, so we'll see stuff like Apps for consoles. And, in addition to that, the whole 'social networking' will increase even more... Looking at the iPad/iPhone and their AppStore as well as, say, Facebook, that's what influenced the whole industry and the internet as a whole the most in recent years.

Regarding Move and Kinect, whether they were good decisions or not, I think it actually took a few customers out of the Wii-Market, and that was probably good enough; the reason they never caught on as well is simple, though; even though Move (for example) is sold for games like Killzone, it's primarily a tool to catch some casual gamers. The systems themselves are catering to the more hardcore market (which again shows how little popularity that unconventional stuff enjoys with the hardcore crowd).

They may incorporate some nice twists here and there, but, unlike what happened with the Wii, it will not safe Nintendo from competing with MS and Sony. So they have to develop a seriously good console to stand a chance, alongside a service akin to PSN/XBL.

Now, if they're going for the hardcore market again and can actually manage to secure a good third party support, it'll be nice to have a third competitor in the market. I still can't imagine seeing games like, say, Shift 2 Unleashed or Crysis 2 on a Nintendo console, but, hell, why not...

What is more likely to happen (as happened with the Gamecube) is that to avoid paying royalties they can develop a proprietary disk format which has the characteristics of Blu Ray but its not actually that format. It is rumoured MS will basically resurrect HDDVD as an 'Xbox disk' format and that will give them comparable capacity.

Well, considering how cheap HDD space has become as of late, its not unlikely that they're just going to have you install all kinds of stuff to replace missing space on the actual disk. With a decently big HDD, it wouldn't be that much of a problem, I think... However, I can't think of a next generation console that doesn't serve as a player of HD Movies. It'll definitely be interesting to see what they're coming up with.

 

[CaptainHarlock]

Yeah, that's why I said it could become a success, but it'll never ever be a Wii-like success. That was a one-hit wonder and it's obviously not coming back. Moreover, the whole 'wacky' stuff has, so far, never really caught on for the hardcore market, has it?
Things like augmented reality are cool and all, I simply can't see that doing anything for the hardcore gamers, much like the reaction I've seen so far to Forza incorporating Kinect...


That 'next hot thing' is already underway for MS and Sony, right now, and it's actually PSN and XBL, I think. That'll probably develop further, so we'll see stuff like Apps for consoles. And, in addition to that, the whole 'social networking' will increase even more... Looking at the iPad/iPhone and their AppStore as well as, say, Facebook, that's what influenced the whole industry and the internet as a whole the most in recent years.

Regarding Move and Kinect, whether they were good decisions or not, I think it actually took a few customers out of the Wii-Market, and that was probably good enough; the reason they never caught on as well is simple, though; even though Move (for example) is sold for games like Killzone, it's primarily a tool to catch some casual gamers. The systems themselves are catering to the more hardcore market (which again shows how little popularity that unconventional stuff enjoys with the hardcore crowd).

They may incorporate some nice twists here and there, but, unlike what happened with the Wii, it will not safe Nintendo from competing with MS and Sony. So they have to develop a seriously good console to stand a chance, alongside a service akin to PSN/XBL.

Now, if they're going for the hardcore market again and can actually manage to secure a good third party support, it'll be nice to have a third competitor in the market. I still can't imagine seeing games like, say, Shift 2 Unleashed or Crysis 2 on a Nintendo console, but, hell, why not...




Well, considering how cheap HDD space has become as of late, its not unlikely that they're just going to have you install all kinds of stuff to replace missing space on the actual disk. With a decently big HDD, it wouldn't be that much of a problem, I think... However, I can't think of a next generation console that doesn't serve as a player of HD Movies. It'll definitely be interesting to see what they're coming up with.

They never go for the "hardcore" market. Sony has always catered to the traditional 18-39 year old male demographic. Which is why you see them run ads on things like the NFL, NBA Playoff, the Stanley Cup Playoffs, South Park, and The Daily Show. Those are things that "hardcore gamers" don't really watch (I'm not even sure that hardcore gamers really know that you CAN "watch" a television anymore). Going for the "hardcore" market is a mistake, reason being is that it's a relatively small audience. Sure, something like World of Warcraft and Crysis may appeal to the "hardcore", but Madden has much more lasting appeal. Football fans will line up every year to buy it, because the average 18-39 year old in the U.S. watches football, and has the money to spend on that game every year. And that's what Sony wants.


The thing about the Move and Kinect is that "hardcore gamers" see it as being very threatening. Now what do I mean by that? I think there's this feeling they have that if the Move and Kinect take off, then the PS3 and 360 will be flooded with "shovelware". That, and I really think that the idea of them getting off the couch and exerting themselves is particularly abhorrent.

I've always found the phrase "hardcore gamer" to be something that you wouldn't want to be called. It conjures up images of guys hunched over keyboards, who shun natural light, and haven't showered in a month. It's also one of those terms that people thing separates "us from them". You really don't find the term in too many other places (except in the world of adult entertainment). If you actually watch television and movies lately, the "hardcore gamer" is regularly mocked and ridiculed. On a recent episode of CSI two of the officers went to question a suspect who was a hardcore gamer, and after seeing a tournament, one commented "these people need to get a life". On The Big Bang Theory, hardcore gamer traits are often the butt of jokes (Wii bowling with actual bowling shirts). I take it we've all seen that episode of South Park as wel Guitar Hero episode. Nobody says "I'm a hardcore Pop-Tart eater!". And besides, do you REALLY want to be this guy?

 

[SuperShouden]

Maybe Nintendo will cater to the woman gamer....but this isn't about Nintendo. it's about PS4

 

[Slammedc]

You know, since the PS3 debuted it seems that everyone and their uncle has been asking "When is the PS4 coming?". It's as if nobody ALLOWED themselves to enjoy it, and they were waiting with bated breath for the news to come down, all so they can say "aw man, I just bought a PS3". Nobody was saying "when is the PS3 coming?" when the PS2 debuted. Same thing with the original Playstation. It really shows you how much the audience has changed in that short period of time, and how there's a lack of patiences and minuscule attention spans these days.

I totally agree with this statement. Society today is wanting technology to advance so quickly that we can't even enjoy our new phones, consoles, computers, cars, etc. anymore before something newer and better comes out. I am only 31 and I feel like I am an ancient dinosaur nowadays when I talk to my 11 yr old about video games and other multi media that he likes. I swear he wants something new every week! I seriously hope that the PS4 doesn't come out for a couple more years at the very least, five more years would be good.

 

[Tornado]

I see you weren't able to find any example of "massive exaggeration and 'drama'". Or even able to attempt to refute any of the things I said, for that matter.

So you finally admit you hate on Nintendo, just don't try to base your hate on facts because the fact is many don't share your dislike of that company or any other gaming company for that matter.

Are you kidding me? You know, I thought using the smiley that almost always represents sarcasm as well as the painfully caustic way that response was written would have been enough for you to realize that I was being sarcastic, but if you are going to take every single thing that could possible be misrepresented as supporting your tired arguments I might as well post everything thing wrapped in giant tags that say [this is sarcasm][/this is sarcasm] and [this is not sarcasm][/this is not sarcasm].

And you might want to climb your way off your high horse if you seriously think that everyone who disagrees with you simply must be biased. I've had lovely, happy debates with other members over this exact topic, so perhaps it has something to do with you throwing the bias card out simply because you don't like what people are saying.

No, they contributed the lion's share of $84 million ($112 million in today's money) to partner up with Toshiba to purpose-build the CPU for the PS2 which at the time was a huge amount so same difference.

Except the PS2 CPU was a modified MIPS R5000 and not a purpose-built design. So, you know, whatever.

Firstly talking like that shows immaturity and secondly you said,

You know what also shows immaturity? Ending posts where you intentionally misrepresent arguments with the words "hilarious" because you want to look clever for intentionally misrepresent arguments.

And you thought that pratice was something out of the ordinary, hilarious.

Again, I said that? How stupid do you think I am, really? I know that the only game systems since the start of the millennium that have been profitable by themselves at launch have been those made by Nintendo.
That doesn't mean that the losses that Sony took on the PS3 weren't extraordinary, which was what my actual point was.

So Sony built a new gaming system with a state of the art processor for the sole purpose of peddling a disc format.... No. It was time for a new Playstation whether Blu Ray had been around or not and Sony felt some good could be done by putting it in.

Keep telling yourself that. I see that any attempt to actually get you to open your mind to debating the idea would be futile at this point.

You love to say that comment don't you but then don't expand on it, which shows theres nothing wrong with what I've said in that sentence.

That sentence is perfectly accurate. Its simply the fact that it blows your entire point out of the water.

You go on and on and on about how every division of a company simply must be intended to make money in the long run and everyone who disagrees is a fool, and then you bring up an example of a division of a company that absolutely was never intended to be profitable whatsoever and whose only purpose was to benefit the rest of the brand. And you even explicitly explain it as such.

I know exactly what I'm talking about and your taking people as fools.

If you had any idea what you were saying, you wouldn't be constantly contradicting yourself.

If Nintendo took the same forumla as the Wii and made a Wii 2 it would probably do terribily because that fad ia pretty much over and the casual market has moved on.

Sweet Christmas, look! He does get it it. In fact, that is the the exact thing that I've been trying to say since the start. Which just means that you are picking a fight for the sake of picking a fight rather than out of any real attempt to have a debate.

 

[gogatrs]

The sooner PS4 comes out, the sooner GT6 comes out.
Kaz has mentioned that he has been limited by the PS3's technology.
If that's not just him making excuses, PS4+GT6=months of nonstop gaming.

 

[Terronium-12]

The sooner PS4 comes out, the sooner GT6 comes out.
Kaz has mentioned that he has been limited by the PS3's technology.
If that's not just him making excuses, PS4+GT6=months of nonstop gaming.

Technically speaking, he's not making an excuse. He's absolutely on ball, GT5 is hindered by the PS3's rather paltry video memory allocation. There's also the issue of fillrate, something the PS3 can't do as well as the 360. Of course there's the fact the 360's GPU has always been the better of the two anyway. If Sony doesn't want these texture and resolution issues for the PS4 it'd be best to adopt a GPU that has, at the very least, 768MB of video memory. I can see them going with about 1.2GB of memory for the PS4; the texture fillrate will be astronomical in comparison to the modified G70 in the PS3, the bandwidth will also be astronomical in comparison, and the best thing is developers should be able to run full-time 1920 x 1080 without any compromises.

Unless they become trigger-happy with the filtering techniques.

 

[E28]

Maybe Nintendo will cater to the woman gamer....but this isn't about Nintendo. it's about PS4

Then we'd end up with a Nintendo Shii...

 

[OutspokenFlunky]

then we'd end up with a nintendo shii...

now that is some funny stuff^^^^^^^

 

[Robin]

Except the PS2 CPU was a modified MIPS R5000 and not a purpose-built design. So, you know, whatever.

You point was about spending lots of money on development, not about the architecture of the chip so you just changed the subject there.

You go on and on and on about how every division of a company simply must be intended to make money in the long run and everyone who disagrees is a fool, and then you bring up an example of a division of a company that absolutely was never intended to be profitable whatsoever and whose only purpose was to benefit the rest of the brand. And you even explicitly explain it as such.

So Sony Computer Entertainment is not meant to ever make money, its there for show? I'm sorry but that's incorrect for every console manufacturer division that has ever existed. You still seem to think consoles are permanent loss leaders there to purely 'benefit the rest of the brand' when actually they are individual products in their own right meant to make a profit after a few years.

Please show me where Sony tell investors, or anyone for that matter that the PS3 is not ever meant to make the company money. Also show me where Sony say that the PS3 was purely a vessel for Blu Ray and not that it was just time for a new games console.

GT5 is hindered by the PS3's rather paltry video memory allocation.

I cannot see why Sony thought a measly 512MB shared would be enough seeing as the 360 had the same but was a year older. They went and put in a powerful processor and storage medium but then skimped on the RAM. The way they allocated expenditure in that system was somewhat silly because if it had never had the EE+GS and card readers from the start it could have had something far more useful like extra RAM.

 

[Tornado]

You point was about spending lots of money on development, not about the architecture of the chip so you just changed the subject there.

No. My point was that Sony did things differently with the design of the PS3.

So Sony Computer Entertainment is not meant to ever make money, its there for show?

Didn't say this either. I'm talking about the PS3. Not the PS3, and the PSP, and everything else in that division.

You still seem to think consoles are permanent loss leaders there to purely 'benefit the rest of the brand' when actually they are individual products in their own right meant to make a profit after a few years.

You still seem to think that you can take what I say and twist it into whatever you want to, but I've had about enough of it. Stop misrepresenting what I'm saying. You do it again and I report you. Simple as.

Suffice to say, no, I never said that all consoles are permanent loss leaders. I never said that all consoles aren't designed with the intent to make profit. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. Microsoft never came close to turning a dime on the original XBox, for example, and they didn't seem to lose a bit of sleep over the issue.

Please show me where Sony tell investors, or anyone for that matter that the PS3 is not ever meant to make the company money. Also show me where Sony say that the PS3 was purely a vessel for Blu Ray and not that it was just time for a new games console.

I have to imagine at this point that I could post top secret transcripts of official Sony board meetings that outline their financial plans for the next 10 years, and the closest you would come to acknowledging them is saying that the only reason I was able to find them is because I'm a massive Sony fanboy.

The way they allocated expenditure in that system was somewhat silly because if it had never had the EE+GS and card readers from the start it could have had something far more useful like extra RAM.

I hope you don't seriously think that the BC chips and the card reader, of all things, is what caused the PS3 to be bottlenecked in the way it is. Those were some of the cheapest things in the launch PS3, and if you took them out there still wouldn't have been enough money to increase the RAM capacity because of how expensive XDR is.

If Sony wanted to put more RAM in the system, there was nothing stopping them. They didn't probably because they didn't see the purpose, and for the most part they seem to have made the right choice. More system RAM wouldn't have made that much of a difference for what Terronium-12 is describing when it is the RSX that holds back most games.

 

[RomKnight]

As long as its backwards compatible so I can play my PS3 games its fine.

Wi-fi N or whatever standard at the time of release would also be great.

 

[Robin]

I'm talking about the PS3. Not the PS3, and the PSP, and everything else in that division.

OK then your saying just the PS3 wasn't meant to make money.

The PS3 was not created to make no money and I don't understand why you think that it was. What basis do you have to say Sony 'threw everything away' (your words) with the PS3 when its aim was just like every console console that has gone before. What even is this 'thing' they threw away? If its a large sum of development money its nothing new so, as I'm saying again, what was so different?

You do it again and I report you. Simple as.

If you disagree with what I'm saying feel free to, it would be the first time in 7 years.

I hope you don't seriously think that the BC chips and the card reader, of all things, is what caused the PS3 to be bottlenecked in the way it is. Those were some of the cheapest things in the launch PS3, and if you took them out there still wouldn't have been enough money to increase the RAM capacity because of how expensive XDR is.

I think your using 'bottlenecked' wrong because those components have nothing to do with the PS3's performance, only cost.

I was talking about the GDDR3 RAM for the GPU because that's where its needed. Even in 2006 is was not any dearer than DDR2 which its similar to. The BC chips cost price was around $30 and the card readers I think where $5-10 and obviously Sony thought they were a significant cost worth getting rid of because they were gone pretty quickly, the EE even went before the EU launch.

Even with $40 Sony at OEM prices could have put another 256 or 512 of GDRR3 in.

 

[LaBounti]

I cannot see why Sony thought a measly 512MB shared would be enough seeing as the 360 had the same but was a year older. They went and put in a powerful processor and storage medium but then skimped on the RAM. The way they allocated expenditure in that system was somewhat silly because if it had never had the EE+GS and card readers from the start it could have had something far more useful like extra RAM.

For the time (2005 unveiled)it was enough. 360's had unified memory and PS3 was delayed a year and it may have been too late to redistribute new SDK and development kits that further delay games for the launch. Not only that the cost per system would rise even more.

Look at it this way Robin lets say the ram chips cost $50 a set. multiply that by 7-10million a year. Now double that. A 1GB of ram ps3 in 2006 would have pushed the system into close to 900 per unit. Even 768mb can be a quarter billion dollars lost every 7 million sold. On top of that it will take even longer to turn a profit. Cost efficiency has its limits in the long run. Ps2's 32MB's handed over the FPS crown to the Xbox. Now Sony going with more ram than the 360 won't make "better games" just more headache financially.

If Sony gave me a choice of "more ram" VS "PS2 playback". Ram does nothing for me. PS2 playback did a lot for me until my system died. So that $40 was better suited for functionally over bragging rights.

Microsoft never came close to turning a dime on the original XBox, for example, and they didn't seem to lose a bit of sleep over the issue.

To add to that Microsoft is the first console creator to Increase the price of their system. In 2005 or 06 it went from $149.99 to $179.99 and the difference was including a $20 game and charging $30 for it.

 

[Robin]

For the time (2005 unveiled)it was enough. 360's had unified memory and PS3 was delayed a year and it may have been too late to redistribute new SDK and development kits that further delay games for the launch. Not only that the cost per system would rise even more.

Look at it this way Robin lets say the ram chips cost $50 a set. multiply that by 7-10million a year. Now double that. A 1GB of ram ps3 in 2006 would have pushed the system into close to 900 per unit. Even 768mb can be a quarter billion dollars lost every 7 million sold. On top of that it will take even longer to turn a profit. Cost efficiency has its limits in the long run. Ps2's 32MB's handed over the FPS crown to the Xbox. Now Sony going with more ram than the 360 won't make "better games" just more headache financially.

If they got the unit cost of the RAM down to same cost as the PS2 Backwards Compatibility (which should have been relatively achievable as costs aside adding one chip is far easier than the EE+GS+32MB setup) before it had been released to manufacture then it wouldn't have pushed the system cost any higher, it would be exactly the same.

I'm sure they could have done more RAM (even 256 more) for the same cost if they wanted to but they probably thought BC would be a far more sell-able feature. Also as you said the console was delayed and they were rushing to get it out the door so its likely they made an oversight like, but not as bad, as with Nintendo and the 4KB texture cache issue.

If Sony gave me a choice of "more ram" VS "PS2 playback". Ram does nothing for me. PS2 playback did a lot for me until my system died. So that $40 was better suited for functionally over bragging rights.

That's the statement Sony thought most people would feel but in the end the feature went pretty quickly and RAM although not a removable feature would be far more beneficial in the long term.

I'm surprised at the number of people not having a PS2 in their house anyway at the time of the PS3 launch. BC although I nice thing to have was not a selling point for me because I really had 2 of the damn things! You could also buy a whole PS2 slim for around $150 which wasn't bad value and maybe Sony could have done a PS2 player add on like Nintendo did with the Gameboy which contained the chips for cheaper.

If the launch hadn't been so lukewarm and the recession hadn't happened we might still have had BC today.

Robin.

 

[Terronium-12]

I cannot see why Sony thought a measly 512MB shared would be enough seeing as the 360 had the same but was a year older. They went and put in a powerful processor and storage medium but then skimped on the RAM. The way they allocated expenditure in that system was somewhat silly because if it had never had the EE+GS and card readers from the start it could have had something far more useful like extra RAM.

The main difference is you could argue Microsoft knew exactly what they were doing; look at the eDRAM, it affords the ability to use a maximum of 4x MSAA with little performance cost. None of that is performed by the actual GPU. Every graphic-related task for the PS3 however is mostly handled by the GPU.

You also have to remember that during that time 512MB was really as good as it could get, there was really no need for anything more as most games could be run with 256MB without batting an eyelid. Only the more resource-dependent games like F.E.A.R could really benefit from the additional headroom. Even now the only time you need anything over 640MB is when you're running at resolutions above 1920 x 1200, and even then it's negligible at best. The actual GPU can only perform as well as the CPU allows it to. I'm not a programmer, nor do I understand much of it so I can't really say anything further.

EDIT: Dammit, LaBounti. Stop stealing my thunder.

 

[LaBounti]

EDIT: Dammit, LaBounti. Stop stealing my thunder.

Sorry, I have not once stepped foot outside today.....

Ps3's PS2 playback spoiled me rotten.....

No memory cards
Unlimited memory cards
Progressive scan for all games
No memory cards
Wireless controller
And best of all No memory cards....

 

[Coxis]

Well, I see this has become the usual flamefest.

Is the product spoken of in this topic the same discussed elsewhere in this board? Are we talking about a completely new console or the supposed, already patented bottom attachment to increase the PS3's power?

Do we know this yet?

 

[LaBounti]

Until it comes from the horses mouth we don't "REALLY" know yet.

Could be PS4, could be add-on or could be both or the same

 

[Coxis]

That's what I thought. Oh man, I don't know if I'm ready for a new console so soon. Hope we're talking about the add on.

 

[Bonefork]

They started working on the next console as soon as the last one launched. That's how it works, you have salaried employees designing hardware, documenting and programming immensely complicated SDKs, managing manufacturing and acquisitions for parts, testing and retesting and retesting, etc. It takes years and years, and you usually start hearing rumblings at least a year in advance (just like Nintendo's new console).

 

[Dan_]

Wow, although this still is a rumour, I'm surprised by the simple mention of the PS4 name. As read in IGN and many other gaming websites, there was a rumour to promote some sort of expansion hardware for the current PS3 but I didn't see any confirmation or solid hint which would eventually lead to a conclusion on the matter.

All facts down on the table, I think we're might be getting a new Playstation in a three to four years timespan and that would bring really significant performance improvement, or a spiced up version of our current PS3, which would be more cost effective and would be out in time to fight the competition.

Microsoft is out there and will surely munch another big slice of Sony and Nintendo's cake.

 

[Tornado]

The PS3 was not created to make no money and I don't understand why you think that it was.

Because there was more at stake for Sony in 2006 than the health of one division. The entire company at the time was going through major financial problems.

What basis do you have to say Sony 'threw everything away' (your words) with the PS3 when its aim was just like every console console that has gone before.

Not every console has the same intent or standards of success. See the original Xbox.

What even is this 'thing' they threw away? If its a large sum of development money its nothing new so, as I'm saying again, what was so different?

They didn't seem concerned at the time about "winning" the console war this time around, considering how they responded to the various actions of Microsoft from 2005 to about 2009.

I think your using 'bottlenecked' wrong because those components have nothing to do with the PS3's performance, only cost.

Your implication was that Sony spent money on BC and card readers that could have been spent on more RAM. That money would never have gone to more RAM, for reasons Terronium-12 and Labounti explained above. The only difference would be that the PS3 would have cost Sony $35 less to make per system and it would probably have had an even worse first year or so than the system ended up having.

I was talking about the GDDR3 RAM for the GPU because that's where its needed. Even in 2006 is was not any dearer than DDR2 which its similar to.

Part of the reason that the system has problems against the 360 unless the developer is really skilled is because the G70 series was inferior compared to the R520 series, and the Xenos in the 360 was a fairly heavily-modified R520 series GPU to boot.
Adding another 256MB of RAM to the GPU wouldn't have done much for the system, because the RSX doesn't really have the power to make good use of it in the first place.

The BC chips cost price was around $30 and the card readers I think where $5-10 and obviously Sony thought they were a significant cost worth getting rid of because they were gone pretty quickly, the EE even went before the EU launch.

Because those things were the easiest things to excise from the system when they needed to cut costs. I've certainly stated my piece on how much I hated Sony for removing it, but what else could they have taken from the system at the time? Bluetooth had to stay, and the Wi-Fi modules cost nearly nothing (which was exactly why they dropped the 20GB model).

If they got the unit cost of the RAM down to same cost as the PS2 Backwards Compatibility

How? The PS2 components were largely nearly 10 year old designs that Sony and Toshiba had been manufacturing in huge amounts since late 1999, and the RSX was a slightly modified version of what was at the time a brand new GPU (albeit it one based on a slightly older design). The RSX was already near being the most expensive thing in the system when it came out.

That's the statement Sony thought most people would feel but in the end the feature went pretty quickly and RAM although not a removable feature would be far more beneficial in the long term.

And they would have had to justify the expenditure at the time, including how the expenditure was made only on the assumption that a bit more VRAM would be of any benefit in the long run.

 

[Bonefork]

Society today is wanting technology to advance so quickly that we can't even enjoy our new phones, consoles, computers, cars, etc. anymore before something newer and better comes out. I am only 31...

Then you should recall that consoles used to come out every four years on the dot, and it's been 5 and counting since PS3 launched.

Also, there's that pesky Moore's Law.

 

[Tornado]

Then you should recall that consoles used to come out every four years on the dot, and it's been 5 and counting since PS3 launched.

It was always far closer to 6 years than it was 4.

 

[Bonefork]

It was always far closer to 6 years than it was 4.

Wikipedia says we can settle on 5; either way, Xbox 360 is 6 years old this October and developers have been hitting hardware limits for a while now.

 

[Slammedc]

Wikipedia says we can settle on 5; either way, Xbox 360 is 6 years old this October and developers have been hitting hardware limits for a while now.

Ok, I guess it is time for an update, but it would be nice of Sony to wait for at least one more year. I just think that if they wait for one or two more years the technology will be much better and the product that they could produce would be more in line with what we all actually want.