PS4 rumours (leaked?) ...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Obli
  • 65 comments
  • 3,609 views
Digital-Nitrate
Possible, yes. However, one of the big advanatges of consoles is that the key hardware (GPU & CPU) are the same for everyone who ones that generation console model. This way developers can optimize their games for those specific platforms, and as consumers we don't have to worry about compatability issues in the same way that PC gamers do.
Click to expand...


I figured there would be compatibility issues with CPU and GPU changes. What about just having expandable RAM? Wouldn't that yield better texture quality and higher resolutions in games without making it too difficult for developers to utulize that or would it be just a waste? Does anyone know what I'm talking about with the N64 expansion slot? I think it allowed games to be played at 640x480 resolutions instead of the standard 320x240 or something like that. I would find a link about it but I'm too lazy.:)
 
The Expansion Pak added 4MB of system memory to the N64.

Sony needs not to think like Nintendo (Motion Plus) and Microsoft (HD DVD, Wi-Fi, etc.). Stay away from expansions.
 
I think Sony has learned their lesson on having everything included into the system and charging a rediculous price. I connect both my 360 and PS3 through ethernet so I could've done without the wifi in the PS3 because it's useless to me. Maybe Sony should think like Nintendo and Microsoft because both of their consoles are kicking the PS3's butt. Whatever, though. When the new systems are out, I'll get all 3 again just like I did this generation. :lol: They all have their great exclusives.

Thanks for the Wiki link!
 
zazaza
PS4 for 2011, for my point of weiw, it doesn't sounds nice. PS3 has a big potential. We need software, not an another console.
Click to expand...

Exactly, all these rumours of a totally new Playstation in 2010 are silly because Sony themselves have stated that the PS3 will have a lifecycle in excess of 10 years exceeding the PS2 which has now already lasted 9 years (3 years with the PS3 and 6 on its own).

The PS3 has plenty of potential and in no way needs to be replaced by 2010. The reason why the 360 has to be replaced so soon is due to it already reaching the height of its potential and its ageing PC architecture needs to be upgraded, that and it also needs a next gen media format. (MS optical disk anyone?!) :sly:

At one point it was stated that there might not even be a PS4 and that the PS3 would be their last console. This might now have changed since the console has stated to do better.

What is more realistic is a PS Three Slim in 2010. It will have no additional power or features but will be everything the PS3 is but in a smaller cheaper package.

Robin.
 
Quiet_Storm
Maybe Sony should think like Nintendo and Microsoft because both of their consoles are kicking the PS3's butt.
Click to expand...
I beg you. Lets not start that over again, please.

I agree that it would be nice to have games installed directly on the PS3. I have that for my PS2 (is it wrong that the drive in my PS2 is larger than the one in my PS3? :lol:) and I love it. Turn it on, pick a game and no. No switching discs, no worrying about the kids throwing them around, etc.

As for the specs, I highly doubt that Sony'll come out with a significantly upgraded PS3, but those specs don't look like the PS4 numbers I'd expect to see, either. 2011 is entirely too early, also.
 
Quiet_Storm
Maybe Sony should think like Nintendo and Microsoft because both of their consoles are kicking the PS3's butt.
Click to expand...

How is the 360 kicking the PS3's butt? It did come out a year early, but the PS3 has significantly faster sales rate than the 360.


SalesRates20090111World.jpg



The Wii doesn't really compete directly with either, as noted by how the Wii versions of multi-platform games regularly sell fewer than any other version, including the PS2 versions... which up until recently PS2 versions were often even selling more than the 360 versions. The games that sell well for the Wii are Nintendo and Wii only games. Basically the Wii is Nintendo's personal ATM. :)


So let's try and not exaggerate things, like the myth that the 360 is kicking PS3 butt... certain media types and fanboys are bad enough at that. They look only at NA sales figures following the big price drop on 360s and start jumping to conclusions. It pays to pay attention to the much bigger picture. 👍


TB
I beg you. Lets not start that over again, please.
Click to expand...

👍
 
I don't like looking at the bigger picture because I get confused easily due to all the numbers floating around.:(
 
Pepsi0
Yeah, I agree with Ardius. There's no shocking technology in there, and the apparent launch year is way too early for a totally new console.
Click to expand...
While the technology might not be shocking, the consequences very well may be. The reason there are very few games running at 60FPS/1920*1080p (even GT5P doesn't run at the full 1920x1080) right now is the lack of memory. If they take away that bottleneck AND add five times the amount of cores, we'll be seeing some really nice looking games.
 
This rumor could be true, but I doubt it. I'm not saying it's complete BS, either, but this could be another attempt for some publication to attract attention to itself. Hell knows we went through a ton of that crap with the PS3 and its software.

However, I do remember the disappointment in some developers opinion in interviews just after the launch of the PS3. You never know if Sony just might be canceling their long term plans for the PS3, in favor for the PS4.

I think now that video, audio, hardware, memory and component standards are equalizing, I cannot help but think Sony would jump at an opportunity to make a better console than the PS3, especially if MS has plans to reveal a new console soon, sooner than their original plans.

I will add one last thing, and though I'm not disappointed in the graphic quality of the PS3 and most software titles, I have seen software titles in development with better graphics than what was initially released. MGS4 comes to mind. Again, I don't have a problem with the graphic quality of MGS4, but it was better when the game was in beginning development.
 
This new thing had better not take away from the PS3 we have now, that's all I can say. I forked out big dollars for this one and it had better last longer than 2011!
 
NLxAROSA
If they take away that bottleneck AND add five times the amount of cores, we'll be seeing some really nice looking games.
Click to expand...
Looking to burn a larger hole in that wallet of yours? Such a CPU does not exist, the cost of the PS3 would skyrocket, and then the game developers would have to adapt to a new processor; thus loosing reputation and those who already bought a PS3 will be mad. Lets see... 8 x 5 = 40 cores equals big hole in Sony's wallet and yours.

In the current market that we are in it is not such a good idea.
 
I fail to see why people can't see this as being plausible.

Not an evolutionary leap? Sounds like a slim model upgrade? If this were true it would mean triple or quadruple (24-32) the cells on the chip (currently has 8). That is a minor upgrade? If that's a minor then a quad core PC is just a minor upgrade from my pre-1ghz PC.

And then Sony has made brief mention of sticking with the Cell (why wouldn't they?). It is still new. just making it bigger means that development won't have a learning curve, so less year one games that are crappy ports, and immediate backward compatibility with PS3 titles.

But seriously, if someone handed you a PS2 at launch, said it was a powerful upgrade of the PS1 and never mentioned that it was a different chipset, so you only thought the only new tech it had was a DVD drive would you have cared or noticed? If that were all the PS2 was, but it did everything the same as it does now, would it make it less cool?


There is no mention of GPU, and RAM is just mentioned as being more (duh). So, how can you make any kind of judgment on this? Perhaps the GPU or RAM will be the evolutionary leap.

You want the PS4 to have 3D? Did this say it wouldn't? No. And considering they were running it on a PS3 at CES I am going to take a wild guess that having it available on a PS4 is not a huge leap.

Blu-Ray wasn't mentioned, sure, but they won't drop it because keeping the Cell adds a huge benefit in BC.

And I fail to see why the 2011 date is implausible. That is five years from the PS3 launch (2006). Plus, the article says they want it to be ready to happen by 2011 in case Microsoft makes an early move, not that it will happen in 2011. Microsoft themselves said they are pushing back past 2011 because of the economic situation. So, 2011 isn't likely. And if it is 2012, then that makes it on the same cycle as the PS2-PS3.


As for the hard drive install discussions: If I understand it correctly, those are a necessity of Blu-Ray combined with developer laziness. BD has a huge amount of capacity, which means that poorly organized data on the disc can lead to longer than ideal search times. We also have an early stage BD drive in the PS3 that does not have a fast drive speed. I would guess at at least an 8X BD drive in the PS4, which could eliminate the lazy developer issues.


And nowhere does anyone mention pulling support of the PS3 when this happens. If you wouldn't be happy with this PS4 because it is just an upgrade then stick to your PS3. It will be good for another 4-5 years after that. Heck, plenty of people right now are still plenty happy with their PS2.


Honestly, I can't believe the amount of negativity and disbelief at this idea, when I can almost guarantee you that Sony has been working on this since the PS3 launched.
 
^^^I wasn't negative about it. Hell, I wish it was possible to have a PS4 now with amazing graphics (no more aliasing issue, no more frame rate issue, dumb AI, no low res textures, etc.), sound and overall game physics that would totally immerse me into the game world. When I say better physics, I want the grass to bend and bushes to move and stuff when I walk through it. Can we be friends now?
 
^^^ agreed. Lets say it did happen in 2011, I think a lot of people would feel ripped off who bought a ps3 lately
 
^^^wow. Not many good games? Wow....... I doubt either of you have played every game rated 8.0 and above for Ps3. That's your opinion just like its mine to say PS3 has many good games. I know I own over 45 PS3 titles and do not regret buying any of them. They may not fit your taste but please add "in my opinion" when you say things like that or at least explain what system does have many good games and why PS3 doesn't. Otherwise it just seems like a hollow opinion.
 
Foolkiller: spot on.

We're talking about a rumour here. If it is true, 2011 is at least two years away. Sony are just keeping on their toes in the possible event of a new Microsoft console being unveiled.

I think the PS3's cell is very capable as it is. The thought of a 24 - 32 core Cell, clocked at a higher frequency would be a significant increase alone. Add to that more RAM (probably faster). Then, a 2011 graphics chip (GPU)... just comparing the nVidia 7800 GTX (basically the PS3's RSX GPU) to a current GPU such as the nVidia GTX 280 reveals an average framerate increase at full HD resolutions of 6 times! Imagine how much faster graphics chips are going to be by 2011! Couple that with experienced PS3 programmers and that would produce some incredible stuff!

nick09
Looking to burn a larger hole in that wallet of yours? Such a CPU does not exist, the cost of the PS3 would skyrocket, and then the game developers would have to adapt to a new processor; thus loosing reputation and those who already bought a PS3 will be mad. Lets see... 8 x 5 = 40 cores equals big hole in Sony's wallet and yours.
Click to expand...

The article states that improvements in the Cell processor manufacturing process would make such a CPU possible, possibly at a lower cost than the PS3s Cell processor was at launch. This is normal. Older processors that may have once cost hundreds of £££s to fabricate may now only cost tens of ££s. For all we know, it may already exist. Plus, if the Cell architecture remains the same (or similar) - which is the suggestion - programmers would not have a great deal new to learn.
 
Well it's interesting and i look forward to seeing it develop, despite only having my ps3 for just over a year! I guess i could trade it in ...
 
LaBounti
^^^wow. Not many good games? Wow....... I doubt either of you have played every game rated 8.0 and above for Ps3. That's your opinion just like its mine to say PS3 has many good games. I know I own over 45 PS3 titles and do not regret buying any of them. They may not fit your taste but please add "in my opinion" when you say things like that or at least explain what system does have many good games and why PS3 doesn't. Otherwise it just seems like a hollow opinion.
Click to expand...

Forums are all about hollow opinion :)
 
Quiet_Storm
^^^I wasn't negative about it. Hell, I wish it was possible to have a PS4 now with amazing graphics (no more aliasing issue, no more frame rate issue, dumb AI, no low res textures, etc.), sound and overall game physics that would totally immerse me into the game world. When I say better physics, I want the grass to bend and bushes to move and stuff when I walk through it. Can we be friends now?
Click to expand...
You seemed to be more questioning than negative.

As for grass bending and bushes moving; Uncharted did it some, but not completely. Gran Turismo 5: Prologue had grass on the roadside bend as you drove by.

It is getting there, but as is the case with many things, the willingness of a developer to make it happen will be the final barrier to overcome.

LaBounti
^^^wow. Not many good games? Wow....... I doubt either of you have played every game rated 8.0 and above for Ps3. That's your opinion just like its mine to say PS3 has many good games. I know I own over 45 PS3 titles and do not regret buying any of them. They may not fit your taste but please add "in my opinion" when you say things like that or at least explain what system does have many good games and why PS3 doesn't. Otherwise it just seems like a hollow opinion.
Click to expand...
This is why I posted. I suspected those who actually seemed angry at the thought of a PS4 in 2011 hadn't given it proper usage.

Obli
Foolkiller: spot on.

We're talking about a rumour here. If it is true, 2011 is at least two years away. Sony are just keeping on their toes in the possible event of a new Microsoft console being unveiled.
Click to expand...
I don't think what people realize is that 2011 is only one year quicker than than the PS2-PS3 cycle. And if Microsoft keeps a normal time frame for their console and Sony constantly goes longer eventually we will see two Microsoft consoles within one Sony console. So to keep even either Sony and Nintendo will have to shorten a cycle or Microsoft will have to lengthen a cycle. Microsoft has already mentioned lengthening their cycle this generation, so that is the most likely outcome, but this article states that Sony wants to be ready to prevent the one-year lead Microsoft has this generation.

I am sure Microsoft advertising 8 million more units is bad press, even though breaking that down actually shows the 360 is selling slower on average than the PS3 year over year, despite being much more expensive.

If Sony can put out a PS4 for cheaper than the PS3 at the same time Microsoft can get out their next console then it will be a truly interesting time. Developers will be equally familiar with development on both (assuming Microsoft stays with their similar to Windows build) and so games won't be poorly ported on either console the way the original Xbox, and now the PS3, suffered early on. This will be the first time both will be able to face off on an even footing.

It should actually make for some interesting consumerism.

peter_vod69
Forums are all about hollow opinion :)
Click to expand...
My hollow opinion says that I have enough quality games to spend all my free time at home on my PS3.
 
FoolKiller
I don't think what people realize is that 2011 is only one year quicker than than the PS2-PS3 cycle.
Click to expand...

Not only that, but some may not realize that the PS2 is still going strong despite the 360 being out for the last three years and the PS3 and Wii for the last two years. In fact, as discussed a few months ago in the main PS3 thread, the PS2 version of most multi-platform titles earlier last year sold more than any other version.

So even if some kind of PS4 comes out in 2011, that doesn't mean the PS3 will then be dead and won't be supported for a ten year cycle, and instead will likely thrive just like the PS2.
 
Im telling you guys, there won't be a totally new PS4 system in 2011! There might be a PS3 Slim in 2011 but it would be totally mad of Sony to release a totally new system that early and I'l tell you why.

Firstly with times being the way they are Sony is not going to invest in the development of an entirely new console. They struggled with the PS3's development and that was when times were good. Putting money into a games console is far more risky than investing the money in less volatile consumer electronics such as camera and audio player development.

Secondly, much more time, money and effort has gone into the PS3 than the PS2, just the technology and complexity of the new systems hardware speaks for itself. Therefore it should easily outlast the PS2's 6 years on its own because it was intented to be alot more future proof.

Thirdly Sony have said that they intend the PS3 to last atleast 10 years (2016) on its own and they have also said that it might be their last console (but that it less set in stone). Whatever it is the last thing on Sony's mind is making a new console. Times are hard and might be hard for a while and even if things are great again by 2011 both companies and consumers will want thier products to last as long as possible before they have to introduce / purchase something new.

Robin.
 
Robin, I agree with a lot of your assesment regarding how the economy will impact various companies strategies, but do you have an actual reference to when Sony ever said that the PS3 would be on it's own for ten years. I know they said it was designed to be supported for ten years and seeing as the PS2 is still going trong, I have little doubt the PS3 will do just as well if not better, but I do not recall them ever saying they would not bring out a new console earlier than ten years from the launch of the PS3. If they have said that, I suppose it still would not prevent them from doing it.
 
SCEA president Kaz Hirai said in a statement on their plans with the Sony Playstation 3 gaming console: “We look at our products having a 10 year life cycle, which we’ve proven with the PlayStation. Therefore, the PlayStation 3 is going to be a console that’s going to be with you again for 10 years.”

He further said: “We’re not going to ask the consumers to suddenly buy another PlayStation console in five years’ time and basically have their investment go by the wayside.”

Hirai clarified on a potential successor to this console: “I can’t speculate on when we might come out with a new console after PlayStation 3. But my message is that once you become a family in the PlayStation family of products, you become a family member.”
Click to expand...

Kaz Hirai has clearly said no new console in 5 years and that would be exactly 2011, the date that the speculation of a totally new console is based upon. With the economic issues its is even more likely that Sony will stick to this quote.

Robin
 
So from that source, Sony and or Kaz did not say the PS3 would be on its own for ten years, only that it would have a life cycle of at least ten years.
 
Digital-Nitrate
So from that source, Sony and or Kaz did not say the PS3 would be alone for ten years.
Click to expand...

The final paragraph explains the 10 years on its own because he says 'after'. If they intend the PS3 to last ten years right, and that a future console if there is one will come out after the PS3 thats you get the 10 years on its own. It self explanatory, eitherwise he will have just contrdicited himself in the first and third paragraph.

Robin.
 
Robin.
The final paragraph explains the 10 years on its own because he says 'after'. If they intend the PS3 to last ten years right, and that a future console if there is one will come out after the PS3 thats you get the 10 years on its own. It self explanatory, eitherwise he will have just contrdicited himself in the first and third paragraph.

Robin.
Click to expand...
No, you've got that all wrong, that is if I managed to read through your sentence structures.

The PS2 has had a life of nearly 10 years already. Games are still sold for it and so are the consoles. But it has still been followed by the PS3.

From that article it also states the PS3 will have a life of 10 years, but there is no confirmation, or denial, that this will include time overlapped with the PS4.
 

Latest Posts

Back