Rumor: Next PlayStation Called Orbis, Out in 4Q13?

[exfileme]

An unnamed source claims that Sony is calling the PlayStation 4 "Orbis," and that developers have already received the SDKs since the beginning of 2012.

Rumor: Next PlayStation Called Orbis, Out in 4Q13? : Read more

 

[alidan]

given sonys finances i believe the getting out of gaming, or at least holding way of on a new console far more than i believe the rumors in here.

 

[Bloob]

From PS2 to PS3 ~6.5 years, from PS3 to PS4 ~7 years, sounds likely to me.

 

[JOSHSKORN]

Gamers rejoice. Buh-bye 2005 graphics. It's about time. I hope the rumor is true. Maybe PC gaming won't be held back, then.

 

[fslateef]

No backward compatibility with PS3 games is understandable _but_ paying for used games OR not allowing them to play is not good. I won't buy next-gen consoles if they put restriction on this 🙁 Also I think this will encourage more people to find-out other ways to play games on these consoles rather than buying them in first place.

 

[stingstang]

Was about to wonder out loud when someone would complain about the restriction on used games and refuse to buy one because of it...
It's a shame for all the game stores who sell used games, but it's not going to break anything. I assure you.

 

[sporkimus]

The fact that the new consoles, being Xbox and PS4, will feature no used game playability is a huge disappointment. The ONLY way I can see myself being OK with this is if they chop the retail price of games in half. I'm sorry, but paying $60 for a new game is just ridiculous... especially if once I buy it, I'm stuck with it and can't even resell it.

 

[Combix]

*An unnamed source*
*Rumor*

Lets see something official ^^

Nuff said!!!

 

[gamerk316]

Gamers rejoice. Buh-bye 2005 graphics. It's about time. I hope the rumor is true. Maybe PC gaming won't be held back, then.

Fail argument is fail. Its not like graphics have really moved forward much since 2005 anyways; the last two DX API updates were speed enhancements, with very little in terms of new graphical features.

I expect the new consoles to push 1080p/120Hz (3D)/4xAA by default. Thats about all I expect out of them.

 

[Dark Comet]

[citation][nom]gamerk316[/nom]Fail argument is fail. Its not like graphics have really moved forward much since 2005 anyways; the last two DX API updates were speed enhancements, with very little in terms of new graphical features.I expect the new consoles to push 1080p/120Hz (3D)/4xAA by default. Thats about all I expect out of them.[/citation]

You think PC graphics would be the same now if consoles never existed? With new engines like Unreal 4 there will be a big difference in graphical detail when these new consoles are released. Well once developers get the hang of them.

We've come along way since 2005, motion capture tech, etc is much better.

 

[GoldenI]

Habeas Orbis

 

[GoldenI]

[citation][nom]Dark Comet[/nom]You think PC graphics would be the same now if consoles never existed? With new engines like Unreal 4 there will be a big difference in graphical detail when these new consoles are released. Well once developers get the hang of them.We've come along way since 2005, motion capture tech, etc is much better.[/citation]
A console is essentially a computer, however, it tends to be limited in its hardware, and functionality. Saying that PC graphics would never be the same if consoles had never existed is ridiculous, considering the first games were developed on computers.

 

[CaedenV]

[citation][nom]gamerk316[/nom]Fail argument is fail. Its not like graphics have really moved forward much since 2005 anyways; the last two DX API updates were speed enhancements, with very little in terms of new graphical features.I expect the new consoles to push 1080p/120Hz (3D)/4xAA by default. Thats about all I expect out of them.[/citation]
Forget about the APIs for a minute (even though I think you are absolutely wrong on that point) and realize something else: The PS3 has 256MB of video ram and 256MB of system Ram. How big of a level, and what level of detail in the environment (were not talking textures here, we are talking tree/building/clutter count) can you cram in there? Just how exciting of a map can you cram in that space? When we all complain about the annoyances of consoles holding back gaming it is not merely in visuals (thought that is a big part of it); It is also about crappy level design, and making environments that do not feel real enough to be believable. You can have small maps with high amounts of detail, or huge maps of mostly empty space, but in the end you have 256MB of memory! That is not enough when on the PC side we have a minimum of 4x that just on the GPU, and generally 16x of that for system memory, and a growing number of people have much more than that.
Add to it the limited and crappy processors that consoles have and that consoles dominate the game market (with the exception of MMO's), so even if a game is not developed for consoles, the designers all know console, and many gamers expect a console experience... which is far less than even the most limited of budget 'gaming' PCs can do.

Personally I cannot wait; I want a game that will put my 570 to work, and give me an excuse to use the extra power in my PSU in getting a 2nd 570!

 

[willard]

I'd love it if the restrictions Microsoft (and apparently Sony) are planning on used games pushes people back toward PC gaming. There's no doubt in my mind that the PC is a vastly superior platform, we just need all those console gamers to realize it too.

I want AAA PC only games again! Every time we get a console port, a little more of me dies inside.

 

[willard]

[citation][nom]CaedenV[/nom]The PS3 has 256MB of video ram and 256MB of system Ram. How big of a level, and what level of detail in the environment (were not talking textures here, we are talking tree/building/clutter count) can you cram in there?[/citation]
This, this, a thousand times this!

When games are developed with consoles in mind, they are also developed with console limitations in mind. Developers can't make the game with a GTX 680 in mind and expect a good experience on a console, so entire games get dumbed down to the lowest common denominator, which are the consoles.

I still remember the days when PC games and console games were so different that nobody ever expected a PC -> Console port. You couldn't run Fallout on the SNES no matter what you did to the game. It was a game that only worked on the PC. There is still a ton of stuff the PC can do way better than consoles, but we don't get those games anymore.

Why? Because consoles make more money. As long as consoles are inferior to PCs and more profitable, PC gaming is going to suffer. We need to either bring consoles up to PC level (impossible given their 5-7 year refresh cycle) or get PC revenue up to match consoles so developers can justify targeting PCs exclusively.

 

[techtre2003]

The AMD GPU will reportedly support games at a resolution of up to 4096 x 2160, far exceeding the needs of most current HDTVs -- but obviously prepared for compatible 4K HDTVs which will eventually become standard in or sometime after 2013. It will also be capable of playing 3D games in 1080p

This is the part I found most interesting. Sony already has a 4k projector and we're starting to see some 4k TVs pop up. The PS3 basically paved the way for mainstream blu-ray; will the Orbis do the same for a new 4K format or at least bring BDXL to the forefront?

 

[jfby]

I am tired of hearing about the future going to not being able to play used games. If I go to a used car lot and buy a car that retailed for $20k and pay $10k for it, I'm not going to send GM or Ford a check for the difference (or some part there-in) to get full functionality of the car.

If they can't make enough money the first go around with the game, then they should charge more.

 

[Dark Comet]

[citation][nom]GoldenI[/nom]A console is essentially a computer, however, it tends to be limited in its hardware, and functionality. Saying that PC graphics would never be the same if consoles had never existed is ridiculous, considering the first games were developed on computers.[/citation]

I meant they'd be better because they would not be held back by the limited hardware available in consoles.

 

[Dark Comet]

[citation][nom]willard[/nom]This, this, a thousand times this!When games are developed with consoles in mind, they are also developed with console limitations in mind. Developers can't make the game with a GTX 680 in mind and expect a good experience on a console, so entire games get dumbed down to the lowest common denominator, which are the consoles.I still remember the days when PC games and console games were so different that nobody ever expected a PC -> Console port. You couldn't run Fallout on the SNES no matter what you did to the game. It was a game that only worked on the PC. There is still a ton of stuff the PC can do way better than consoles, but we don't get those games anymore.Why? Because consoles make more money. As long as consoles are inferior to PCs and more profitable, PC gaming is going to suffer. We need to either bring consoles up to PC level (impossible given their 5-7 year refresh cycle) or get PC revenue up to match consoles so developers can justify targeting PCs exclusively.[/citation]

Agreed, most of the time PC's get shiny stuff on top of the console based version of the game instead of a game built ground up for the PC.

 

[theconsolegamer]

[citation][nom]willard[/nom]This, this, a thousand times this!When games are developed with consoles in mind, they are also developed with console limitations in mind. Developers can't make the game with a GTX 680 in mind and expect a good experience on a console, so entire games get dumbed down to the lowest common denominator, which are the consoles.I still remember the days when PC games and console games were so different that nobody ever expected a PC -> Console port. You couldn't run Fallout on the SNES no matter what you did to the game. It was a game that only worked on the PC. There is still a ton of stuff the PC can do way better than consoles, but we don't get those games anymore.Why? Because consoles make more money. As long as consoles are inferior to PCs and more profitable, PC gaming is going to suffer. We need to either bring consoles up to PC level (impossible given their 5-7 year refresh cycle) or get PC revenue up to match consoles so developers can justify targeting PCs exclusively.[/citation]
What about Nvidia releasing the GTX 660 and calling it GTX 680? That's what really is holding back PC gaming. Nobody can say PC gaming is being hold back by consoles when you fking buy COD: MW3 and Skyrim (games ported to PC)