Sony Hints PS4 Won't Arrive Much Later Than Xbox 720

[techy74]

We all know the PS3 specs. In the times I have had my PS3 i have had to upgrade my PC 2x. My PS3 still, plays the games I brought 4 or 5 years ago and GT5 2.0 looks incredible, Uncharted looks fantastic and Graphics are not the problem.

My thought is what will they replace it with?
PSx = First game CD
PS2 = First Game DVD, made DvD popular
PS3 = First Game BR Disc, helped Blue Ray win the HD sales race.
PS4 = ?

 

[wspinden]

So much hate toward Sony. But have you considered that HD-DVD was the market leader until, largely, Sony pushed the PS3's Blu-Ray?

Sony may have dropped behind in the gaming arena, although unless it's a Kinect game, I usually opt for the more durable blu-rays of the PS3, since we've got kids around.

Not to mention cost of ownership for gamers that play online heavily favors PS3 vs. Xbox.

The PS3 was a better choice for adult gamers who use the features, the Xbox is better suited for families. They both get used here for their own purposes.

 

[Guest]

Honestly, i've seen this PC vs Console argument for quite a while... and my honest opinion is that there is still a market for consoles.

These games are becoming more and more social, with more and more people adopting them (think nintendo Wii)

from a simplistic point of view, people dont have to wait for the xbox to boot up, they dont normally have to install the game & stay on top of updates, patches..etc.

they don't have to waste time jumping from 3rd party server, to the next cool 3rd party server company for social gaming.

They dont (normally) have to worry about people running BOTS and cheating as heavily as they do with PC's

And these machines are becoming ever more integrated with their network media. (i spend 80% of the time on my xbox streaming movies form my PC or even my cell phone at times)

and until the entire world is on fiber to the curb, there will be a market for physical videogame media.
and so long as we americans become lazier and lazier, there will be a market for console games.

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]otacon72[/nom]If I was a gamer, which I definably am not, I'd rather go the console route. Just one high end video card cost as much as an entire game console. At least the console isn't obsolete after 12 months. I'm sure I'll be thumbed down mercilessness now..lol[/citation]

i am a gamer, and if consoles had mouse and keyboard support, i would game on them exclusively.

now here me out pc people, what i love about consoles it the no bs game play. i dont have to install, i dont have to deal with drm on my system that wasn't designed for it, and unless the console is broken, it just works... can any of you remember windows 98 days of gameing...

how about trying to run an older game on the pc now?

you are lucky if you can run a game and it has no flaws, my xp computer runs the witcher just fine, my little brothers 7 computer... well... it crashes so much that he doesn't even bother with it after 2 hours.

if consoles had keyboard mouse support, hands down thats where i would game, as i said in the past, i couldnt care less what the graphics look like.

 

[aaron88_7]

Screw this whole Sony vs Xbox vs PC debate. I'm going back to D&D!

 

[kashifme21]

Console gaming is just to expensive for my taste. They lure you in by making you think the hardware is only 300usd, however later they rip you off on the games. every game on console costs 10-20usd more, the accessories can cost a ton more too. Mot gamers end up buying 20 games a year atleast.

Now consider 20 games * 15usd avg price difference per game in a year. Hence PC is cheaper on the software by about 300usd per year. By the Second year the PC is cheaper then owning a console. By the 3rd year the PC has most like paid for itself, note this doesnt even include the insane discounts available on Steam.

Imo console gaming is a rip off.

 

[4th floor]

PS4 won't steal any computer gamers but it's also not trying to. It will be the most powerful console when it's released and get existing console gamers to upgrade to it.
The specs have been shopped around and I'm sure they are bound to change slightly as things finalize but the current specs are as follows.
New Cell processor with all 8 cores enabled at ~4ghz, double to cache of the existing chip plus some new instructions and other tweeks it's said to between 70-133% faster then the PS3 so not overly exciting, there will be a secondary arm chip to run OS/DVR features.
(There are 2 versions being considered, one a console and a second a console/DVR that would be available via some cable providers).
RAM will be 4Gigs of XDR shared between both the system and graphics card, no idea of the breakdown.
GPU will be by AMD and will be a new design with GCN, we are told to expect it to be slightly more powerful then the current 6990M. That's the mobile version so don't get overly excited. It will still be a vast improvement. They are aiming for 60fps at full 1080.
The optical drive is upgraded to a 12X speed and will be BDXL with much more cache then the existing model.
HD is said to be 2TB on the DVR versions, probably one 1TB on the console. No idea how they will cram 2TB in there unless they go to 3.5". Perhaps they are expecting there to be 2.5" by the time they go to manufacture. Cache is also said to have been increased significantly.
The console will have USB3 including front and rear ports, and the latest bluetooth, built in Wifi N, and interesting backward compatible with PS1,PS2, and PS3. I imagine via emulation but it should be powerful enough. Another interesting item is it'll have a flat top with a recharging pad built in to recharge your controllers/remotes/cellphones. They are also predicting that at release it will use no more electricity then the current slim model. Price is expected to be $399 for the console, no price mentioned for the DVR version, probably an extra $100 depending on the cable company.

 

[kashifme21]

@4th floor

A 6990m is slightly weaker then the 5870 from 2 years back. Hence if PS4 launches with that it wont be that impressive. Specially considering that games will be looking alot better too hence doing 1080p on those games wont be as easy as doing 1080p on current games.

Hence they probably will charge 400usd for the console. Later charge more on every game bought. Mean while a 700usd PC will easily be out performing it.

However the catch is that because of higher priced games the console will turn out more expensive in about a years time of gaming(even less if steam discounts are taken into consideration).

Lets not forget a PC does alot more then a console ever can, hence this is looking way too much int he PCs favor from a economy point. Imo console gaming is expensive.

 

[kashifme21]

Edit: so PS4 might be launching with 3-4 years old tech by the time it does launch.

 

[cphorn15]

[citation][nom]4th floor[/nom]...New Cell processor with all 8 cores enabled at ~4ghz, double to cache of the existing chip plus some new instructions and other tweeks it's said to between 70-133% faster then the PS3 so not overly exciting... RAM will be 4Gigs of XDR shared between both the system and graphics card, no idea of the breakdown.GPU will be by AMD and will be a new design with GCN, we are told to expect it to be slightly more powerful then the current 6990M. That's the mobile version so don't get overly excited. It will still be a vast improvement. They are aiming for 60fps at full 1080.... Price is expected to be $399 for the console,...[/citation]

I find it hard to believe that they'd be able to keep the price of the PS4 down with those specs and not loose boatloads of money for years to come. Having 4 GB of RAM doesn't surprise me as you can get that much on DDR3 for nearly $25.

What does surprise me is the fact that it has 8 cores (first why would they do that since most games don't utilize more than 2 threads) and clocked at 4GHz. Plus, if it's really only 133% faster at best, they need to consider buying their cpus from AMD. It's really unacceptable if that's all the performance gain you can get after 5-7 years when PCs have sped up significantly faster in the same time frame.

The gpu is a pleasant surprise although I hope that they at least have something comparable to the 79XXm or 78XXm line (when those come out) so that it will weather games better as software technology advances.

 

[blubbey]

[citation][nom]wspinden[/nom]So much hate toward Sony. But have you considered that HD-DVD was the market leader until, largely, Sony pushed the PS3's Blu-Ray?Sony may have dropped behind in the gaming arena, although unless it's a Kinect game, I usually opt for the more durable blu-rays of the PS3, since we've got kids around.Not to mention cost of ownership for gamers that play online heavily favors PS3 vs. Xbox.The PS3 was a better choice for adult gamers who use the features, the Xbox is better suited for families. They both get used here for their own purposes.[/citation]
I thought the porn industry backed Blu-Ray first..... Whatever porn backs wins.

 

[elcentral]

im hoping xbox 720 dont go 720p i hate low rez games alot of the gaming pulled me out of massefect only cuz a ultra low rez texture of the ship looked like som pixelated art. I can play almost eny game at eny settings as long as its in the same grapics qualety but if it for no reason pulls down alot its like they made a mistace anddident bother to fix it. And a lot of ports sadly do exacly this.

 

[pocketdrummer]

[citation][nom]KawiNinjaZX[/nom]It's true, once a console comes out it is already dated. Once they R&D and build then sell the system, the technology is old. HOWEVER, the games are built specifically for the hardware, so they run more optimal, unlike PC games which have to work on a variety on configurations. PC gaming is great, but console gaming will always be more simple and mainstream. You can look at a PS3 game like Uncharted 3 and see what they can do on aging hardware. I won't be needing a new console for a while.[/citation]

Or you can look at what a PC can do with BF3 and realize you're living in a dream world. Consoles are massively outdated. More outdated than any other console relative to their release date. IT'S TIME TO MOVE ON!

 

[pocketdrummer]

[citation][nom]BulkZerker[/nom]http/www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6868110088Ok you have a $300 budget to build a PC that plays a new title on 720P resolution (not including monitor, not including OS) with new parts GO!Oh wait... YOU CAN'T!That's the facts man. A Console when new (being $600 or so last time I checked when the PS3 and 360 were brand new) was comparable in price to a NICE gaming tower. But as the parts become older dieshrinks... ect. Consoles become unbeatable in terms of price.[/citation]

Take most modern desktop systems and drop a $300 graphics card in it and voila, you have a gaming computer. Now run HDMI out to that same TV (that you apparently have but didn't factor into cost) and you're set for $300.

Right now, I don't have a TV; I watch everything on my monitor. SO, I would have to go out and buy a decent 1080p TV (because I'm not about to drop to 720p). That's at least $500 right there. Now add in the console ($300) and a xbox compatible wifi adapter (what was it again... $100?) and I'm set! All for about...... $900. Not to forget the $50/year (minimum) fee for xbox live.

It's easy to take things out of context. But, the total cost to get a console would cost more than it would be to upgrade my system and it would deliver far less performance in-game, and be FAR less useful for everyday tasks.

 

[Zingam]

My bet is: Instead of inventing something revolutionary Nintendo followed by Microsoft, followed by Sony will just spam the market with generic consoles. What will get is yet another sucky console generation lagging behind the PC. What they''l do is to upgrade a little bit the GPU to achieve some facelift effect and that will be it.
No raytracing, no real interactivity, no real AI, Physics, etc... meh

 

[steelbox]

I'm not a hardcore console gamer i have only an PS1 and a N64. I'm a PC gamer, have i5 and HD4870. But what many PC gamers don't realise is, consoles don't need the same requisites than a PC. The internal architecture of a CELL processor is based on RISC if you had a console processor and leading edge video card it would cost $1000, but it would also leave any $1000 buck PC in the dust.

 

[Jarmo]

[citation][nom]MasterMace[/nom]Of course you'll be thumbed down mercilessly. You're talking nonsense. ..... The PS3 came out in November 2006, the 7900GT in March 2006. You can build a computer more powerful than a PS3 for less than the PS3 costs.....[/citation]

Eh, of course you can do it now. But how well can you play current games on your $1500 system built around GT7900 + Pentium 4? Well enough to justify splashing 3 times the cash you'd have spent on a PS3?

Or maybe you'd have been clever and spent mere $500 for a system with GT6600 and Athlon 1,6Ghz? And then the same amount again a few years down the road?

Disclaimer.
I have an early PS3 and during it's lifetime I've spent over $2000 on two PC's (and am looking at upgrading the GPU again sometime next year for maybe $200. It's fine, I prefer PC gaming. But PC gaming is not the cheap way out.

 

[kashifme21]

@Jarmo

Upgrading the PC is an option it is not a requirement. Here is a little example for you.

Back when the PS3 launched it cost 600usd. Back then i built the following PC:

2.4ghz dual core cpu
8800GTX
4gigs of ram

The PC cost me 1000usd.

So it was 400usd more then the PS3. Now every year i buy about 20 games atleast. Every game costs me 10-20usd cheaper then the PS3 version. Lets take 15usd at average. 20games * 15usd = 300usd per year saved on games.

Now consider by the first year the PC almost cost the same as the console. By the second year the PC is cheaper then the console and has some change left over. By the 3 year the PC has almost fully paid for itself.

Now a 8800GTX even today outperforms the PS3 in every game. PS3 runs most of its games in 720p or below, while 8800GTX even today will run console ports in 1080p.

Now after 3 years even the PS3 will be dead and will need a replacement. Thats another 300usd on the console and you still end up with the same power you had 3 years back.

For the above mentioned PC heres what can happen, upgrade the CPU to a quad core and OC to 4ghz can be done for 180usd, add a GTX 560 gpu about 200usd more. This can all be done with the money saved from games and you will still have money left over.

In comes next generation:

With console you dont know if all those thousands of usd worth of games you bought will even be playable on the next console. With PC your library just keeps growing as PC retains most of its BC. I currently have over 150 games on Steam, i would be really pissed if i had those on console and was told i cant play them on the next box.

Moral of story in the long run PC is a lot cheaper then console.

 

[Jarmo]

[citation][nom]kashifme21[/nom]@JarmoUpgrading the PC is an option it is not a requirement. Here is a little example for you.Back when the PS3 launched it cost 600usd.... Moral of story in the long run PC is a lot cheaper then console.[/citation]

First, I'll have to congratulate you for your build. 8800 is probably the best GPU purchase anyone ever made. I'm actually pretty amazed you could squeeze all that into $1000 back then when the GPU alone was about $500+ (OS included?). (My $600 box served for a couple of years and then it got relegated to serving alongside the telly.)

Second. Your upgrade plan suggests you'd be willing to go from what was previously top grade build, to something that's.. mediocre. I assume you can still find CPU's that'll work in the old MB? Even so, do you think you'll get another 5 yrs with that upgrade? I'd bet you'll be looking at another full replace before the time is out.

Third. I'll both accept and refute the price through games argument.
Granted, I also buy a ton of games through Steam discounts and GOG. Assuming I'd buy those at full price for PS3 I'd spend a lot. However, the less games you buy the less you spend (obviously enough), narrowing the PC pricing advantage. But also, you'll easily get more back if you sell your used console games (vs. attempting to sell a used PC game), buy COD4 for $60 bucks, play for a month (if that) and get $20 back from a games store.

I'll admit PC is better if you wish to maintain a large gaming library (although even then, it's a gamble if your 5 yrs old game still works on a new OS/DX/GPU, while you can be pretty sure any old PS2 game will work on that old PS2) or if you simply purchase tons of discount games.

 

[imi2003]

[citation][nom]kashifme21[/nom]Console gaming is just to expensive for my taste. They lure you in by making you think the hardware is only 300usd, however later they rip you off on the games. every game on console costs 10-20usd more, the accessories can cost a ton more too. Mot gamers end up buying 20 games a year atleast.Now consider 20 games * 15usd avg price difference per game in a year. Hence PC is cheaper on the software by about 300usd per year. By the Second year the PC is cheaper then owning a console. By the 3rd year the PC has most like paid for itself, note this doesnt even include the insane discounts available on Steam.Imo console gaming is a rip off.[/citation]

Also you've got to remember all that money you will be saving, by not being able to buy the console exclusive titles like Uncharted 3, the tekken series Metal gear soild 4, virtua fighter, Forza, GT5.
Myself i own a gaming PC xbox 360 and a PS3 (and a wii), the one i use the most would be the the PS3, it just has better games, and i also like having boxes to put on the shelf (i,m not sold on the digital downloads, because in many cases it costs the same as a boxed version, but with out the box the manual and disc)