Playstation 4

[eSZee]

Consoles don't have graphics cards and SSDs are inefficient for consoles. And for consoles to have both a SSD and HDD is redundant.

16spe Cell isnt the answer. 8-16 "Symmetrical" spe's is. With 1GB of unified memory.

They don't have GPUs? SSD inefficient? It's not worth the money, but it's still faster than plate HDDs.
1GB is the answer? Ha ha ha.

 

[LaBounti]

They don't have GPUs? SSD inefficient? It's not worth the money, but it's still faster than plate HDDs.
1GB is the answer? Ha ha ha.

Yes With consoles pushing 250GB and 320GB a SDD would be too costly to match the size and inefficiency for hardware manufacture cost and not really necessary for consoles. A GPU is not a graphics card. A graphics card is a removable unit that has a GPU, memory controller and video memory with video out puts on a "card" with pci-E or AGP connector. A GPU is just a chip, no card.

1GB is twice as much as current consoles, they could go 2GB but that might be over kill for consoles. From the look of games now over doing it on the ram doesn't seem cost efficient.

 

[Shokz]

1GB is twice as much as current consoles, they could go 2GB but that might be over kill for consoles. From the look of games now over doing it on the ram doesn't seem cost efficient.

RAM is the first thing they should look at increasing - developers have been struggling with the 512MB in current consoles (especially in the PS3)
for a while already. 1GB would only be enough to make developers this gen truly happy. Next gen, if all games are going to be 1080p (which they should be), textures specifically should be larger and therefore much more ram would be needed. Considering RAM is actually relatively cheap to procude, it makes sense for there to be 2GB in the next set of consoles.

 

[wedding racer 2]

I never realised how weak the hardware on consoles was compared to a PC, seems the specialization REALLY makes a huge difference...

 

[LaBounti]

RAM is the first thing they should look at increasing - developers have been struggling with the 512MB in current consoles (especially in the PS3)
for a while already. 1GB would only be enough to make developers this gen truly happy. Next gen, if all games are going to be 1080p (which they should be), textures specifically should be larger and therefore much more ram would be needed. Considering RAM is actually relatively cheap to produce, it makes sense for there to be 2GB in the next set of consoles.

This gen is 5 years old now, if they had 1GB from the start they would have a hard time making profits and the prices would not drop. They will have to keep making games built around the hardware. If you had to produce hmm, for one year 7-8 million units of ram for a system you can save hundreds of millions by using 1GB over 2 and reduce the hardware cost. Then multiply that for every year after. The problem is people compare console specs to PC specs too much. PS2 had just 32MB of ram. PS1 2mb. Ps3 256+256. PS4 may not have 2GB unless its unified. 1GB+1GB of video seems likely. The only real advantage now with ram is texture data. 2GB of main ram seems like a waste for a console if its not unified. I would not be shocked if PS4 had more Video ram than main ram. 360 games on average use more ram for texture and video than for main ram.

 

[panjandrum]

I want it to play games, I don't need a web browser, I don't need a store to buy movies or any of the other things they have added. All I need is for it to play a game, save said game and allow me to play online as well as buy DLC.

Yep, all I care about is a reasonably priced product that can play whatever the next version of Gran Turismo is after 5 (or after 6 if they make version 6 for the PS3). I do not want to be forced to buy all these extra features again just to play the game I want.

 

[Alex p.]

I simply want it to be powerfull, the focus being especially on much memory and a beast of a graphics card. I believe it would be totally enough if the main processor would be like 3-5 times faster than the cell. Now combine that with state of the art graphics card and huge memory (4gb main memory and 2gb video memory) and this system will boost pixar-movie quality graphics at 60 flops, true 1080p and finally some efficient anti-aliasing and texture filtering.
Oh the possibilities! How awesome GT will look like on such a system. Super fluid, high rez and super crisp picture quality. Maybe 30-40 cars on track too, please? lol

I really believe nobody expected GT3 and GT5 to look as good as they did in the end (or will do in the case of GT5). Look when GT3 launched, there was NO other game on any given system being technically so impressive, it just looked out of this world. GT5 on the other hand is being trumped graphically by at least two games now (Crysis1 and 2, and before someone says this is not true, well you're lying, I've seen Crysis on the highest settings and oh my G...it looks amost next gen). But there is a reason for this, 1. late release, 2. "0.8" 1080p graphics, up to 500k polys cars-16 of them at the same time while dynamic timechange and weather change and damage model is working, this is insane, PD are truly wizards. (therefore now some framedrops and some low texture quality)
I just can not wait to see how the next-gen GT will look like.

 

[HPT]

Why in Gods name would you want to put an SSD in your PS3? I mean, sure the access times are going to be quicker and the power consumption will be lower, but you're not going to drop your PS3 are you? The cost of it versus the performance you'd gain just wouldn't be worth it.

I think we will soon reach a bit of a plateau with video games, as we seem to have on PC. The games just cant be coded that take full advantage of [and can exceed] the performance of the latest machine. There just isn't the time afforded to developers by producers to take the time they want to over a game and make it the best it can be. EA is particularly bad for this, and Sony and PD are the only marked exception to the rule.

There certainly will be a new Playstation, it probably won't be around for another 3 years at least, and I don't see that as being a bad thing to be honest. The key thing you have to ask yourself is what's wrong with the PS3 at the moment? If you can think of something generally wrong - I know some people have said it's a bit light on RAM - maybe you're right - but equally the XMB is hardly a RAM intensive OS. - then you should probably get on to Sony, as in my opinion it's a pretty flawless machine. I mean, sure there are probably more efficient ways of doing things, ways of making it consume less power and so on, but the overall performance of the PS3 is quite impressive. The only possible thing that I could think of is the issue that it's the most difficult game to code video games for. I know Sony is quite secretive and it loves to force people to use proprietary software and such [remember minidisc], but I think if it was more accesible, then we might have games that are ported to the XBOX rather than the other way round. There's little more I hate than booting up a game and realising that it is just a cheap XB port. It's one of the reasons that I hate most modern PC games.

In fairness though, the PS3 has kinda revolutionised games consoles. The PS3 isn't just a games console, but it's Blu-Ray and so on, the idea of it was that it was planned to be the only thing that sat under your TV, with the possible exception of a Sky Box or whatever.

They have achieved a lot. But it's cost Sony very dearly, the first PS3's were sold at a $250 loss per unit. That's a lot of money to lose, I understand they're now making profits - but the PS3 launch - as with most of Sony's launches - was a bloody disaster.

I really hope that they sort themselves out and get a new PS out before Microsoft do, and that it's a high quality machine - and ideally a damn sight better looking than this plastic lump that currently resides on my desk.

 

[jjaisli]

W...but the PS3 launch - as with most of Sony's launches - was a bloody disaster.

On this I agree. Sony did suffer for pushing the envelope a bit too far. And they will no doubt be mindful of this when designing the PS4. That said, and considering the PS4 is still years away, I honestly think a lot of people in this thread vastly underestimate emerging technology and falling prices.

I don't think Solid State drives are an unrealistic possibility for the PS4. It's certainly the direction we're going. Most mid-range desktop PCs will begin to use them as an option within the next few years. They're already a BTO option on high end models and have been for a while. I'm guessing within 10 years, nearly all PCs, even entry level models, will come with SS drives and traditional hard drives will be a thing of the past. Once the price falls below a certain level it's inevitable.

Likewise, main memory, processing power and graphics output for the PS4 are likely to quadruple the power of the PS3. And realistically, for a system that will be sold between, say, 2013~2018, it should be expected.

It's pretty clear now-a-days, that even mid range PCs with a half way decent graphics card can handily out perform the PS3 and Xbox360. Whenever we see nice looking screen shots of multi-platform games (NFS:Shift, F1:2010), we're inevitably looking at the PC version. By the time the PS4 is released, the bar for what will be a mid-range PC will increase yet again. Unless Sony decides to pull a Nintendo strategy, we should expect a significant technological advancement. But probably not as cutting edge as the PS3 was at the time.

 

[LaBounti]

Yep, all I care about is a reasonably priced product that can play whatever the next version of Gran Turismo is after 5 (or after 6 if they make version 6 for the PS3). I do not want to be forced to buy all these extra features again just to play the game I want.

This is why the Wii exists.... Personally I'd rather not pay a premium price for a system with limited capabilities in this modern era of game consoles with HD and high speed internet connections.

I think we will soon reach a bit of a plateau with video games, as we seem to have on PC. The games just cant be coded that take full advantage of [and can exceed] the performance of the latest machine. There just isn't the time afforded to developers by producers to take the time they want to over a game and make it the best it can be. EA is particularly bad for this, and Sony and PD are the only marked exception to the rule.

Not sure what you mean but EA is a publisher, they don't make games anymore, they buy developers to make games for them. A few EA published games take advantage of the PS3 architecture. Dead Space, Burnout and many other games look and run very well with PS3 as the lead platform. Killzone 2 blows many games out of the water and Uncharted 2 is one of the better looking games of 2009. Console games will never reach PC like limits as all games will have the same hardware to run on. Games keep getting better without the need for new hardware so its the opposite of what you think could happen. Looking at GT5 and seeing it run on a 8+ year old obsolete GPU architecture is amazing.

Consoles do not need 4GB's of memory, Sony is not going to over due it on ram if they don't have to. The current OS doesn't use even 1/4th of what PC's "require" and they do not have graphics cards . SSDs are just not necessary for consoles(even in 3 years) if they can save hundreds millions (if not billions) in production costs. However if Sony keeps to their standards gamers will be free to upgrade to them and it will not be an issue.

However 2018 is just unimaginable as far as specs........

Hmm 2018 console specs?

4.8GHZ AMD Dual Core CPU with "2000" Stream processors for Data and graphics S.O.C. x2
4GB of unified GDDR7 at CPU's clock speed
2160p120 SuperHD HDMI1.5

 

[rudi555]

First its TOO soon to sony release a ps4
Second if it does come out now just imagine gran turismo in there!!!

 

[Bram Turismo]

I really believe nobody expected GT3 and GT5 to look as good as they did in the end (or will do in the case of GT5). Look when GT3 launched, there was NO other game on any given system being technically so impressive, it just looked out of this world. GT5 on the other hand is being trumped graphically by at least two games now (Crysis1 and 2, and before someone says this is not true, well you're lying, I've seen Crysis on the highest settings and oh my G...it looks amost next gen).

You cannot compare both, really.

Crysis is by now an old game and runs on a poor Crytek engine. I know the game looks damn impressive, but you need the most high-end hardware to run it smoothless on the highest settings. If you thought those were impressive, then have a look at the mods for the game:


For the sake of eye-candy, please watch in HD.

As I said, the game runs on an unoptimized engine. However, the Crytek engine did get improved a lot with Crysis: Warhead which offers even better graphics than the original Crysis, yet it runs a lot smoother. This is probably why the majority of modding in Crysis is done in the Warhead game.

I myself play this game on customized settings which are a duplicate of the highest settings, but without the hardware impact. I haven't touched Warhead since I still haven't completed the original game. (Some maps are so awesome I re-do some missions at least 3 times) The thought of Warhead looking better and running smoother is too much since the original title already looks so fantastic on my laptop.

Crysis 2 isn't going to get any better I think graphics-wise. I think they have rather put in a lot of time making the Crytek engine run even better on most systems since, let's be honest, Crysis hasn't been the best selling game since only a small group of gamers could even play the game. Now that it comes on multiple platforms I think Crytek are wanting to widen their fanbase by bringing out a well optimized engine that most of us will be able to enjoy. I can't even imagine how Crysis 2 can get any better since Crysis is the best FPS I've played. The multiplayer, however, wasn't as good. But I wouldn't be surprised if Crytek announced the delay of the PC version for 2 years because the sufficient hardware isn't on the market yet!

Anyway, I would like to add that PD have done an incredible job on GT5 if you compare to most of the other PS3 titles. It's amazing what they have managed to squeeze out of the PS3 if you compare its specs to the high end PCs of today. Same goes for their PS2 titles; I still, to this day, think GT3 is one of the best looking games for the PS2.

 

[emacs]

First its TOO soon to sony release a ps4 ...

i agree. the PS3 has several years left in its lifecycle. i suspect the PS4 will be released late 2013 at the earliest.

 

[TiZzla]

Woah that Crysis video is amazing

 

[Alex p.]

; I still, to this day, think GT3 is one of the best looking games for the PS2.

I actually think it is the best looking ps2 game, because of the rain track at night, I even think that today, it does look very impressive, beautiful.

My opinion only of course.

 

[DanielL5583]

To be honest, the console is two years too premature for release. Maybe if it was released in 2012/2013...
Sony normally release their consoles every six years, so why break the chain?

 

[Akmuq]

I just hope that they don't feel rushed by the new xbox coming out before it. The ps3 was miles better than the xbox it's just the xbox came sooner so it's got pretty close sales. I don't need a ps4 right now. When the new xbox comes out and shows what can be done even if it's rushed then I want a ps4.
What's more important to me is online. I would like it to be just like xbox live. Excluding the money, of course.

 

[terminator363]

I'm happy with my PS3