PS4 NewsWhat If PS4's Power Disappoints? - PS4 News

Members Login: Register | Why sign up? | Forgot Password?

What If PS4's Power Disappoints?

At this point, there's no knowing how much virtual punch the PlayStation 4 will pack.

Any and all supposedly "leaked" specs are nothing but rumor, and that includes the latest set of rumored details, which includes 3840 x 2160 resolution, "10GB of working memory," and backwards compatibility. But let's put that aside.

What if the PS4 really isn't a technological behemoth? What if Sony is looking to cut costs in the next generation; what if they aren't interested in digging a huge hole from the outset? The PS3 was quite the tech Goliath but it cost $600 at launch and even then, Sony was losing money on each machine sold. And given their recent financial numbers, the company probably can't risk doing that again. So what if the PS4 is less about crazy power and more about added casual/mainstream features and accessibility?

Epic Games evidently got a look at both the new Xbox and PlayStation and said neither lives up to their power expectations. Given the amazing capability of the PS3 - which should continue to shine with upcoming titles like God of War: Ascension, The Last Of Us and whatever Quantic Dream might deliver - everyone is expecting more tech wizardry from Sony. But what if we don't get it? What if the new PlayStation goes in a slightly different direction? Even if this makes the new machine decidedly cheaper than anticipated, won't gamers be disappointed?

After this generation, PlayStation fans are sort of accustomed to knowing their hardware of choice is king in the console world, at least in terms of raw power (as evidenced by a number of exclusives). Many have even said they're willing to pay extra for that status. Would they be willing to shell out for a PS4 that falls short of power expectations, especially if those gamers still believe there's plenty of life left in the PS3? Sales could be abysmal. Maybe the next PlayStation actually needs to outstrip everything in terms of power and capability, if only to keep the excitement high.

It's an interesting situation and it's tough to settle on any given answer.

Tags: ps4, playstation 4, next-gen, next generation consoles

5/28/2012 9:06:47 PM Ben Dutka

Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter

Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on Google Share on MySpace Share on Delicious Share on Digg Share on Google Buzz Share via E-Mail Share via Tumblr Share via Posterous

New Comment System

Legacy Comment System (49 posts)

Monday, May 28, 2012 @ 9:55:47 PM

hell yea id be disappointed

Agree with this comment 8 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Monday, May 28, 2012 @ 10:00:14 PM

If the PS4 isn't crazy awesome, then I'll be more likely to pass or at least not rush to get it.

As much as I want the PS4 to wipe the floor with the new xbox, it does make sense for it to be more mainstream (sell more) and not leaps and bounds better (unit cost) b/c of the cost crisis companies are in these days and the general economy. But if that is indeed the case, I'll be a PS3 owner who admires the PS4 from afar.

Tough predicament to be in Sony is.

Stay Classy PSX...

Agree with this comment 7 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, May 29, 2012 @ 8:51:58 AM

"Tough predicament to be in Sony is." - Yoda

Agree with this comment 6 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Monday, May 28, 2012 @ 10:00:52 PM

PS2 was not future proof when it was launched, near the end of PS2 (2006) cycle, the console was pretty outdated. This is not the case for PS3. Even on the 6th year, the PS3 speed, sound and video quality is still better than the majority of the players out there. PS3 still has at least 3 more years before it becomes outdated. Anything being released for PS4 will be a less impressive leap from console to console.

Agree with this comment 7 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, May 29, 2012 @ 9:39:53 AM

Sony did build the PS3 with longivity in mind afterall.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Monday, May 28, 2012 @ 10:02:30 PM

Personally it's simple for me. If the PS4 isn't any marginally that much better than the PS3, I have little interest on it till I'm forced to buy one to catch up on my favorite titles. A console that's more casual, with more mainstream features, and more accessible doesn't mean much to me. I'm content with how it is now.

However, if the PS4 is significantly better, I'm up for it, but not necessarily a launch day purchase. My launch day PS3 at $600 would've been the best investment I've made in gaming and entertainment(if it hadn't DIED), due to the blu-ray tech, free online, and it's multimedia capabilities. I'm hoping the PS4 will convince like the ps3 did. No matter what though, I am not risking hundreds of dollars on a potential failing console by buying it at launch.

Also, it just seems people look at the $600 price tag as a mistake by Sony, but I look at it as a necessary step in moving forward. Without blu-ray or the cell processor, we would not be enjoying all the current and upcoming incredible exclusive games. Otherwise, you're saying Sony should've went the easy route like Xbox by launching a $400 console, with DVD, no wi-fi, and paid online. Sony's financial might be a disaster right now, but I do not want them going the easy route for the PS4.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, May 29, 2012 @ 11:10:28 PM

"Also, it just seems people look at the $600 price tag as a mistake by Sony" Back then Sony was losing a lot of money on each of their console, blu-ray also had a effect on the price to since it was still in format war with HD-DVD.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Thursday, May 31, 2012 @ 10:15:44 AM

I'm aware of them losing a lot of money, but that's not the point I was discussing. I believe blu-ray and the cell processor was a good investment by Sony for the long run, so I just hope they continue building on the tech for at least one more generation. It's too much of a waste to just go back the "easy route." Plus, devs love the extra space in the BDD, and are getting accustomed to the cell.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Killa Tequilla
Monday, May 28, 2012 @ 10:35:51 PM

Sir, the Playstations 3 user interface is nothing short of amazing. It gets the job done, doesnt it? Yes, the Xbox 360 has a whole lot of apps, apps that you cant use unless you have a gold subscription. Most of the apps you have to pay a seperate subscription in order to be used. Just today i was on my Xbox on some music app where if i wanted to listen to a song, i would have to pay x microsoft points for the SD download of the song. Now, tell me, why are they charging me x microsoft points when i can go on the VEVO app and listen to the song in HD picture and HQ sound for free? Thats as greedy as a company can get.

Power, on a console is everything imo. It doesnt hurt to have all the power in the world for use if needed, does it? No. Just like many others here in psx dream, i too someday would like to see the AI in games be very intelligent, more than they are now. Some developers are asking for more power, while other say they dont need it. Well, i say give it more power and let the developers who need less power use 75% of the power if thats how much the want to use.

And to answer the question on the headline, if PS4 dissapoints, then we still have our PS3's.

Agree with this comment 9 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

Monday, May 28, 2012 @ 10:14:27 PM

The PS2 was the least powerful compared to the Xbox and Gamecube, and look how well that sold!!

So long as it is a bit of a jump from this generation, I'm happy with whatever Sony does in terms of raw power for the PS4. So long as they keep pumping out great games and new IP's, I'll be happy!

If Sony make the PS4 backwards compatible with PS3 and PSN games and DLC, then I'll be even happier!!

Agree with this comment 5 up, 5 down Disagree with this comment

Monday, May 28, 2012 @ 11:09:54 PM

You mean make the transition from the Gamecube to the Wii? Probably not then again ill buy it either way. Sony has never let me down since i owned the ps1. I was eight when i got my very first playstation. Ape escape, crash, and final fantasy were some of the few that started my gaming days (excluding zelda and starfox). I honestly dont give two **its about graphics. If games like uncharted, resistance, heavy rain, killzone, and more keep coming out the way they do, i dont care if the graphics arent the greatest because their not what make a game. Its the game that makes a game, thats like saying the artwork in a book is bad.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, May 29, 2012 @ 12:20:51 AM

Playstation will still have the most diverse exclusive games that will push the limit of their respective hardware. Hardware matters but Sony's first party developers will not disappoint. I mean Ps2 was weaker then xbox/Gamecube and Ps1 was weaker then n64 but both Ps1/Ps2 still had a slew of some of the best looking games.

I'm pretty sure Sony won't disappoint hardware wise. But there's a reason why i game on my Sony consoles and not my PC which are the games that i like are not available on PC but rather usually located on Sony's machine

Last edited by huh1678 on 5/29/2012 12:26:35 AM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, May 29, 2012 @ 12:59:43 AM

Interesting question, this.

I am hoping for a big shift. A really big one.
For me to invest in something that is supposed to last for many years unaltered, it *has* to be something that hits hard. I don't *want* a cheap console with mediocre performance. I just don't want it.
I want to pay big money for a big beast.

But I want that architecture change real bad. I am sick and tired of having to settle with the lesser version of the multiplats. An architecture change in itself will be a big step for me. Add to that a graphics chipset with ray-tracing support and a *major* upgrade in memory and I'll greet the next period as a PS gamer with a grin on my face.

Last edited by Beamboom on 5/29/2012 1:00:58 AM

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, May 29, 2012 @ 4:18:19 AM

I flat out refuse to go through another generation of inferior multiplats. Fed up doesn't even begin to describe my feelings about inferior multiplats after watching the Fallout games chug along on my PS3.

Agree with this comment 6 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, May 29, 2012 @ 6:26:25 AM

I've been lucky. All the multiplats I've been interested in were largely identical across both platforms. Well.. all except one. The first Assassin's Creed which freezes all the time on my PS3. Haven't played it recently though. So I don't know if it's been patched.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, May 29, 2012 @ 8:04:22 AM

I never had any problems with freezes in the first Assasins's Creed game. It was an inferior multiplat because of other reasons like resolution and framerate issues however. The second AC was an improvement but it had screen tearing issues on the PS3. After that the games are pretty much identical.

It's interesting you bring up freezing issues though. Bethesda's games are notorious for running kind of wonky and having a lot of freezing issues on the PS3. Fallout 3's DLC was pretty nasty...especially Broken Steel. It's practically unplayable in some sections. The game just locks up on you forcing you to have to hard reset. It's extremely difficult to get into a game when it constantly freezes on you. PS3 owners really got the shaft when it comes to Fallout series.

What's sad about that is it was never patched out and Fallout 3's DLC is some of the best available from a game design perspecive. They are almost like expansion packs. It's their technical execution that is flawed on the PS3.

I don't want to go through that crap again. I definitely understand Beamboom's feelings about having to settle for the lesser versions of multiplats. It only takes one bad experience to leave a bad taste in your mouth.

Like I said on the other PS4 thread. I want the next PS console to be much more developer friendly. It makes sense because the vast majority of games are multiplat titles.

Last edited by Excelsior1 on 5/29/2012 8:14:53 AM

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, May 29, 2012 @ 9:28:59 AM

Oh I've had plenty, last it was Skyrim.

Simply put I don't think I've had a single multiplat game that's run *better* on my ps3 than the x360 or PC counterpart. I'm sure those titles are in existence, but they are in the clear minority and as far as I know this is not the case for any of the 100+ ps3 games I own.
And now that we are at the end of the current console lifespan I allow myself to publicly admit so: This has been bugging me to no end.

So please, please Sony, leave this behind you with the PS4.

Last edited by Beamboom on 5/29/2012 9:30:37 AM

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, May 29, 2012 @ 9:58:05 AM

Fallout? Brotha, don't get me started. I played the PC version and almost cried, how beautiful it was. All shiny-like =)

Yes. I'm down with you both. Oh and for me, the selling point would probably be not waiting for a GOOD RPG for the first 4 years after console release.

Further more. Please be creative, Sony. I mean, at some point you gave us the Dark Cloud, Legend of Dragoon as well absolute avalanche of other, beautifuly inventive games.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, May 29, 2012 @ 11:56:18 AM

An architecture change ensure that all Sony 1st party teams have to completely re-learn the architecture, and doesn't in any way guarantee better multi-plats.

There were two reasons for poor multi-plats this generation. The first was the 1 year head start that MS had. Developers of multi-plat games had a whole year of additional work and polish on their code for 360 vs PS3. The second problem was the Cell architecture. Unlike the 360 it was a heterogeneous system, that is the CPU had two completely separate types of core that were not integrated into a single instruction set. In essence the PS3 was like having three processors, the PPE, the SPEs and the GPU.

The parallel use of the SPEs was a mind set change for developers too. However, going forward parallel processing and heterogeneous environments are not going to be strangers to developers. These are things that all game developers will have to get used to as hardware performance hits the point at which you need multiple cores in parallel, and special purpose cores optimized for certain types of operation in order to gain more performance from the hardware.

You can't simply bump up the clock or the number of cores. There is zero point having 8 x86 cores on a CPU is the majority of the code running is FP code for physics, audio and graphics. Those 8 x86 cores will be largely unoccupied with that workload, and only the FP execution units will get any work for the majority of the time. From a hardware point of view, in a game console device you need relatively small amounts of general purpose computing power, and a lot of floating point horsepower.

So only having a couple of general purpose cores supplemented by a larger number of floating point units is the way to go. If those floating point units can work together, all the better. On an x86 design, that's the practicality of what happens, and a lot of the chip real estate is essentially idle. This is why CellBE was designed, smaller general purpose resource (PPE) with larger FP resource (SPEs). Conceptually there is little difference between this and an 8 core x86 where one x86 core runs the main game code, and the FP execution units on the other x86 cores are used to handle the FP load. The only difference is that in the x86 world it's an integrated instruction set. In the CellBE world, the SPEs are independently programmable.

Looking forward, the code profile of a game is only veer going to become heavier on the FP side of things, so a 1-8 ratio of general purpose to Floating point resources might well be the best way to go. I would hope that programmers and hardware designers are all smart enough to see this, rather than taking the lazy approach of throwing ever more x86 cores at the problem supplemented by a $600 GPU.

Agree with this comment 6 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, May 29, 2012 @ 2:05:56 AM

If the power isn't a big leap ahead of PS3 then i will wait for a price drop. It's not just about graphics grunt for me though, i still want to be able to get games on disc format.

Having said that i don't think (hope) we have anything to worry about when it comes to visual performance.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Lawless SXE
Tuesday, May 29, 2012 @ 2:06:19 AM

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'd rather Sony wait. They can release mid-gen with a machine that easily puts the neXtbox and WiiU to shame and no-one will really care that it's mid-tier in the modern power stakes because it will clearly be better than the opposition.

That being said, if they announce it at E3 and it isn't the beast that many are expecting, then the ball will firmly be in the court of MS and you can bet that they'll run with it. The only question then is one of cost. If MS releases a ridonkulously powerful machine, like Epic wants, dev costs will very likely shoot through the roof and could be a deterrent, leading third-party developers to migrate to the cheaper route of the PS4, which would then lead consumers there also.

Of course, it could be the exact opposite, ALL devs wanting more power, ditching the PS4 and Sony bows out of the race. Whatever, I don't NEED a new machine and therefore, I don't WANT a new machine. I just want more games that wow me on the PS3 because they are infinitely better than pixel-pushers (hello, Valkyria Chronicles vs. Killzone 2).

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, May 29, 2012 @ 3:12:43 AM

I think that all depe3nds on the upcoming games for the next gen consoles. If awesome stuff is released for the PC and Xbox that simply is too much to even get a scaled down version for the PS3, well then I believe it would be *catastrophic* for the Playstation brand. Not only for the current sales of PS onsoles, but also for the future sales. Playstation can not be associated with "the machines who can't run the latest games".

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Lawless SXE
Tuesday, May 29, 2012 @ 3:44:26 AM

Reasonable statement, but if developers can cater to a wide range of different power levels on the PC, you'd think that they'd also be able to tune it for the PS3, would you not?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, May 29, 2012 @ 6:59:33 AM

That is an interesting question.
The answer would be yes if the architecture across the platforms had been more similar, as the case might be in the future if the PS4 shift architecture to something x86-based. Then it could have been more easily done.
As things stand today it's not that easy.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Wednesday, May 30, 2012 @ 10:28:07 AM

I don't really buy into that BeamBoom since both the 360 and PS3 are based on identical Power architecture processors. Obviously Cell is more than just a Power architecture processor, but it really should not have been that difficult to make games that work the same on both platforms. Some developers managed it - Criterion for example. But they developed their game engine for both platforms at the same time optimizing each engine for the specific platform. The architecture of the PS3 is really not the issue it is made out to be. the issue is that too many developers are unwilling to put in the effort of building an optimized engine for the PS3, and instead port the existing engine from 360. The trouble there is that a) the PS3 only has one Power core instead of 3, and b) the ported engine makes almost zero use of the SPEs. A game engine coded for a triple core Power architecture that get's dumped on the PS3 is trying to squeeze 3 cores worth of workload onto one core. Instead of reworking their engine to take advantage of the SPEs, many developers simply looked for corners to cut to make their engine work on the single Power core (PPE).

Things did get better over time, but had major developers put some time into a properly designed and optimized engine for the PS3 that used the SPEs, we would never have seen the problems we did.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, May 29, 2012 @ 3:25:47 AM

Day 1 purchase for me no matter what the cost sony is yet to disappoint.....I just hope its B/C with PS3 games

Agree with this comment 1 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, May 29, 2012 @ 5:39:28 AM

Look. Graphics are still a long ways from being 'real'. So there is plenty of room for more and better graphics. But there is also plenty of room for making games with greater capabilities, like being able to put more players in a game at 60 fps.

You can play at 60 fps and have 60 peeps in certain shooters on pc. You can only have 16 to 24 on the PS3. Hell, look at the difference between BF3 on a pc and the ps3. It is sad.

If the ps4 could put 100 people in a game with 60 fps and great top ps3 graphics, then awesome. OR if it could put in 15 to 24 almost real life graphics players in a game, then cool.

But do away with 30fps. That should be old news now.

I want PSN to still be free. If not I'm done with Sony. I should not have to pay 50 bucks a year to have the right to BUY videogames,much less play a FPS online. Now, if after a year or two I am still playing BF3or COD and they want me to pay to play, then maybe.

The system should be NO MORE than 400 dollars. I want MILLIONS to buy it so game companies can make MONEY off large sales.

I think a few game companies were hurt by the sad sales of the PS3 in the early days, and you can bet that gaming companies will not go for what Sony pulled with the PS3.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, May 29, 2012 @ 6:04:18 AM

absolutely it would disappoint, and that is exactly why i cant believe were getting a new one soon.
$ony are not in the position to release the console they need for next gen which is exactly why they should wait!
even if that means being a year or so late to the party again well than so be it!
better turn up to the fight late but in fighting shape than turn up on time and be exhausted!
there is NO point releasing a underpowered system so soon just so they can say he look we have a new system too.
especially from them.
it would be half excusable for M$ and ninty because they have always done that, they have never been known for cutting edge as $ony is.
$ony does not have said luxury though.

$ony needs to wait till they can afford to release the ps4 at least as much a leap as what the ps3 was!

thats another reason why i cant see new consoles releasing yet.
new TVs with new resolutions will be out early 2014 so they should wait till then to see what they are, and how they sell.
projections for 2160P TVs are late next year and 4K TVs for 2014.
the next gen consoles are supposedly to be released next year and 2160P, that will mean 1 year later and they will ALREADY be outdated!
now is not the time for new consoles, not till the market improves, customers have more money to spend, manufactures have more money to spend, and technology has been sorted.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Thursday, May 31, 2012 @ 10:25:31 AM

I get you, but Sony has probably thought about this probably more than you or any of us has. With MS and Nintendo getting set for next gen, Sony probably feels it's a bigger risk to be too late into the party. The problem is that the 360 and Wii has met its due a long time ago. Unfortunately, Sony has to keep up with the competition in launching a console for next gen, even if the PS3 still has a lot going for it.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, May 29, 2012 @ 7:31:20 AM

The reason I bought the Ps3 in 2005 was because it was technologically superior to all the other consoles if that changes, for example If the Xbox becomes much more powerful I will just get that.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Wednesday, May 30, 2012 @ 8:27:58 PM

The PS3 did not exist in 2005.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, May 29, 2012 @ 7:57:49 AM

Well if my predictions/calculations are correct then the next gen shouldnt be a big jump by looking at history. Every odd generation is a REvolution while every even gen is merely an evolution of that previous revolution.

1st Gen- Pong consoles and all those affiliated primitive usually sports based black and whaite games see also the Odyssey as well as the start of arcades. This gen was obviously a revolution cause it was literelly the beginning of a new industry.

2nd Gen - Ataris first batch of consoles come out adding basic colour and more robust controls, also gaming started making money so bunch of other f**** jumped on the console bandwagon and due to an oversaturation of console manufacturers and a certain overhyped game *cough* ET *cough* the entire gaming industry almost collapsed ready to be passed away as just another fad. It was still the dark ages and thus merely an evolution (by the end of the gen it was actually a devolution)

3rd Gen - Nintendo and Sega rise from the ashes and make gaming enjoyable once more and the the 8 bit era gives us graphical and audio quiality previously unthought of to be possible outside the arcade. A definite revolution.

4th Gen - Ninty and sega were really trying to make their consoles stretch further and trying to ouplay eachother in what was known as the bit wars, trying to push a little bit more out of each bit and coming up with all kinds of add ons and work arounds to make their consoles lifespans last longer, while all the loser console manufacturers were trying to stand up to Ninty and Sega. Merely an evolution, not much of an upgrade between NES and SNES or SMS and Genesis, not like between Atari 2600/5200 to NES.

5th Gen - the 1st real gen involving fully 3D games: PS1; N64; Sega Saturn. Revolution nuff said.

6th gen - again the jump wasnt big enough to really warant a full revoloution the PS2/GC/XBX era's gaming pretty much built on the previous gen. With a slight exception to the original Xbx which popularised the online integration of consoles which was the 1st step towards this gen and thenext revolution.

7th gen - And then we come to the current gen, in my eyes probably the biggest revolution gen we've seen in gaming yet imo, dare I say even a gaming industry renaissance. I mean look what happened this gen everything changed, everything got turned on its head. The creation of such nouns such as casuals, twitchers, the hardcore, the social gamer and the indie gamer. Gaming has really bursted at the seams this gen and with consoles becoming more multi-capable and PC like thats adding more fuel to the fire of ascension.

Next gen (gen 8): Well judging how much the industry has exploded, expanded and changed, not only do I think that this kind of huge jump forward or revolution is highly unlikely I think it would be very harmful for us to force it. We've come to the next frontier now now lets build on what we learnt this gen spice it up, tune it up and refine it and the next gen will be right on track according to history.

P.S. Soz for long post, jus get so passionate when it comes to gaming history.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, May 29, 2012 @ 6:27:49 PM

Nice post.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Wednesday, May 30, 2012 @ 12:56:52 AM

Thanx :3

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Thursday, May 31, 2012 @ 10:34:40 AM

I don't know about your gen 6 interpretation, cause in my opinion, the jump in graphics between 5 and 6 were huge. You know this if you've seen the evolution in graphics from GT2 (Gran Turismo) to GT3.

Now if you're just talking about the gaming experience, then yes, perhaps it didn't change much, with the exception of Xbox as you've mentioned.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, May 29, 2012 @ 9:15:49 AM

Chances are, it'll be a good technological step forward.

For decades now, Sony's mission and vision has included a commitment to their tech being the best and of highest quality with each new generation of tech. In the past, they've done that even when they don't sell as many items as the opposition. (I'm not talking PS, here. I'm talking everything from tv's, to video cameras, etc.)

Their mission basically says, that while their equipment might be more expensive, it is a cut above the competition, and you know that when you buy sony, you buy the best.

Could be different, I suppose, given that most people won't pay a little extra for higher quality right now in this economy, but in the past, that has been their mission, and it's been successful until recently. (You can see how the current economy wouldn't help that sort of vision!)

It'll be interesting, anyways. They might not go all out on anything, but I think you can definitely depend on them not allowing themselves to be outdone. Worst case scenario? They match the competition.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, May 29, 2012 @ 9:49:59 AM

another thing allot of people are forgetting is that the ps4 will be the first system not under father kens hat.
$ony said they have had the vita in production for 5 years when they announced it last year which means father ken would of been there for early stages.
$onys hardware has always been so ambitious because of him.
most companies have fat kats at the top, suits that only care about money dont understand a thing about the industry!
father ken though was a passionate engineer which is exactly why every system $ony made was so advanced because he had the pulling power to do so.
and he would not have it any other way because, well, hes a engineer and as a engineer you always strive for the best.
thats another thing that will take a hit to the ps4s performance.
not only the economic times money wise, not only tech wise, but also because the 1 drive, the 1 reason they had for striving so high is now gone.
i hope im wrong i really hope the ps4 is just as much of a leap as the ps3, if not more!
the more the better!
id happily pay 1000 bucks for the ps4 as long as i feel its worth it!
but sadly i doubt that will happen, its far more likely for it to end up a half step rather than a massive leap forward.

but hey maybe thats not a bad thing?
ive always said developers this gen have been far too occupied and obsessed with tech!
its making them loose focus on what matters, the gameplay and story!
so maybe, just maybe this is not a bad thing.
maybe this will finally set developers straight and they will stop acting like games are only pretty graphics!

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, May 29, 2012 @ 10:28:19 AM

Will the PS3 be a huge step in technology? I would imagine, I mean the ps3 tech is 7 or 8 years old.

Also, to the people say the ps3 may have more to offer ( it may ). Obviously the Ps4 will outshine the ps3 graphically and in every other way.

Current hardware is old, simple.

Agree with this comment 6 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, May 29, 2012 @ 11:10:54 AM

current hardware may be old, but the CellBE is still powerful enough to remain relevant. A neat trick for a 6-7 year old CPU designed 8-9 years ago, wouldn't you say?

Agree with this comment 4 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Thursday, May 31, 2012 @ 10:42:10 AM

The only thing that's really old for the PS3 is the graphics card and RAM. The CellBE was ahead of its time when it was released, so it's not really a 2006 tech. Ok yes, technically it was released in 2006, but look at the other processors back then. Nothing comes close to matching it in a gaming console. Cause of this, I'm willing to bet Sony can pull of a next gen good enough, by using the same cell with better graphics card and more RAM. Them upgrading the cell should be overkill, which I hope is the case.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, May 29, 2012 @ 10:58:45 AM

The power of the PS3 is evident by their exclusives, but I don't know how many times that multiplat developers have gimped a game because of the 360's limitations. Developers don't want to make game that's "better" on one console than the other. Look how few games use more than one DVD for 360 games.

I don't think it would be worth Sony's effort to try and produce a vastly superior console over MS, what multiplat developers will take advantage of it?

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, May 29, 2012 @ 11:00:58 AM

It'll be the gamers fault. Somewhere along the line graphics became more important than gameplay.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, May 29, 2012 @ 11:10:07 AM

If PS4 is not a leap from PS3 in terms of power, then what precisely will the incentive be to buy into it? Early adopters, tech geeks and folks like them bought the PS3 precisely because it was a technical powerhouse and a real generational leap from the PS3. That group of buyers is the majority of the purchasing power for the first 6-12 months of the console's life, before that initial price tag drops and games start appearing in numbers. If Sony fails to deliver something special enough to entice those buyers, they are going to stall at the starting line.

The thing is, that unlike the jump from PS2 to PS3, we are not changing from standard resolution TV standard to HD. This generation is an evolutionary improvement. To most people 1080p will look better than 720p, but it it's not like the jump from standard def to HD. That's why the graphical prowess as measured by resolution of the system should matter less, but the underlying horsepower will still matter for things like AI and the physics, as well as post processing of the graphics to improve the quality, if not the resolution. Frame rates will matter more too.

But in truth the PS4 will need something beyond being the new PlayStation to bring customers from PS3. That's why I don't think it can stint on the performance.

That said, I foresee a tiered version of PS Plus, the bottom tier will be cheaper than the current price and include basic cloud based saves to support Vita and PS3/PS4 game save transfarring. I foresee much better integration of Vita with PS4. Home will continue to operate with PS4, as time progresses it's a nice little money spinner because production costs are low. I also foresee more on 3D tech, as well as an even greater reliance on digital distribution. Security will continue to be a battleground.

I would not be surprised to see Sony implement more of the features of the digital locker from the UltraViolet digital rights authentication system. It's cloud based, and even though we will not likely see the end of physical media, I think that the online pass shows us how things will go.

More games will ship with some essential component for online access not on the disc. When you first use the game and enter your online passcode, it will download that component. That process will be very tightly controlled, and although games will continue being provided on disc, anything online will be locked up strongly. This will help the publishers preserve the value of their games - even in the used markets, and it will also support platform security by making hacked consoles much less attractive to own.

Last edited by TheHighlander on 5/29/2012 11:24:08 AM

Agree with this comment 5 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, May 29, 2012 @ 12:06:59 PM

Some good thoughts in there, Highlander.

Also, I am hoping for some sort of surprise in the PS4 package, something else than pure gaming related.
The PS3 had the blu-ray drive. That was a one of the major reasons why I ended up choosing this console over the competitors, being a big movie fan too.

I have no idea what it could be this time around, but I really hope there's *something* that makes me go "oh sh*t, what a clever thing to add!".

Last edited by Beamboom on 5/29/2012 12:14:43 PM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, May 29, 2012 @ 12:54:30 PM

Well, I'm pretty sure that the PS4 will use the most recent update of the BluRay standards, so it will be the higher capacity type. But that's not really a surprise. Going x86 would be a huge surprise, but not (IMHO) a welcome one. If PS4 turned out to be ARM based and kind of a scaled up Vita design, that would be a surprise, and interesting. If the thing turned out to be Cell based, I think that too would be a surprise for most, since the common wisdom seems to be against Cell. Considering that the PS4 will in theory be revealed in 12 months time we know next to nothing about it. If they reveal it at E3 this year, *that* would be a monstrous surprise since again, we know next to nothing about it.

I am very interested to see what happens with PS4, I wish I had some inside track. With PS3 I knew for a long time it would be CellBE based. This time, it may even be a surprise.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Tuesday, May 29, 2012 @ 4:19:38 PM

This is a tough question for me because I'm a playstation fan. (not fanboy) I love most of playstation brand products because they're usually more often than not, innovative, ahead of its time, etc. I can throw in a whole bunch of accolades their way.

The thing is there hardware usually outsells the competition. This generation they released the ps3 which in my opinion is leaps and bounds ahead of microsoft's 360 in terms of hardware and software exclusives, yet the 360 sells more in the US. (I'm not going to get into technical reasons and theories for the sales of the 360)

Nintendo is king as far as sales and most of the company's initiative is geared toward the casual gaming demographic. Sony MAY look at this and rethink their approach to gaming next gen and think about the casual market more.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Wednesday, May 30, 2012 @ 12:56:13 AM

I think Sony will stick to doing what theyve always done make games for all markets and genres but you might be partly right, I think we might see a balance shift to predominantly intensely action games and casual games and other games will take the backburner (but they will still be ther)

I think the interesting thing to note is the presence of the indie game industry this gen I think most of us "hardcore" artsy fartsy gamers will get our fix from the indies.

Hopefully that will also help readjust the predominant gaming preferences more or less back to what they were before this gen and by mid to end next gen we could hopefully have a balance again in quality AND quantity AND diversity; seeing as hopefully by the then the main twitchers/casuals/socials of this gen have been exposed to enough new material to want to try something new, thus become a "hardcore" gamer.

I know that sounds a bit arrogant but my definition of a hardcore gamer is someone that doesnt discriminate games due to their genre's, a hardcore gamer doesnt necessarilly like all genre's (but definately quite a few) but he/she respects them and he/she is always hungry for the highest quality most innovative games for their respective genres.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Wednesday, May 30, 2012 @ 1:09:58 AM

This is a tough one. What confuses me is that Sony clearly made the PS3 to have a longer maturity than the PS2 had and also longer than the 360 was capable of. Problem is, they are tying the release of the PS4 into the release of Microsofts new hardware rather than jsut doing their own darn thing.

This leads me to believe that they would be wasting resource to give us another massive technological leap. They might as well give us something which sits alongside the new XBox (tech spec wise) as they'll be pushing out the NEXT generation at the same time anyway.

I'd much rather Sony announced that they didn't need a new machine yet as the PS3 still has many years to go until the end of its cycle, and so the PS4 will come when it comes. The market would see that Microsoft give us a 5-6 year machine and Sony give us a slightly more expensive 7-8 year machine. We could all then make a judgement on which was better value for money.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Wednesday, May 30, 2012 @ 9:52:41 AM

You have more faith in consumers than the market indicates is merited.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Leave a Comment

Please login or register to leave a comment.

Our Poll

How often do you visit the site?
Once a day
Several times a day
Every few days
Once a week
This is my first visit
I've never been here, even now I am not here

Previous Poll Results