By Furious Francis, owner & editor-in-chief
The PlayStation 4 dev kits are currently on their way to developers according to a report by VG247. Based on what was reported, the PS4 ‘seems’ be a very powerful console, well under high-end PC’s, that will be more affordable than the PS3 was at launch. Users who are a lot more tech savvy than I am also noted that with the specs that were released in the report, the PS4 will not have the same leap in graphics we saw from the PS2 to the PS3. More interestingly it ‘seems’ the PS4 will not be vastly superior graphically, to the Wii U. Sony is known for pushing high-end graphics, but it looks like Sony is more worried about optimization, ease of development, and gameplay fluidity this time around. We also know Sony’s game division has posting multi-million dollar losses lately. So This has me wondering if the Wii U’s $299-$350 price point, forced Sony to hold back a bit on the PS4′s graphics to stay competitive?
40°
90°
60°
30°
Ad 
120°
40°
40°
30°
20°
30°
Nintendo is probably the only console maker who could get away with releasing an under powered console
It takes a lot of power to do that. Plus the system has plenty of Ram and the games already look as good as 8th generation Xbox 360 and PS3 games.
The System will have better graphics as we go along its life cycle. Wait till the next Zelda game comes out!
True.
Plus at the price it's going for ($299 Basic 8 GB model / $350 Deluxe 32 GB model), it's still a little steep for the average consumer.
Ken Kutaragi was the main proponent for why the PS3 exceeded budgets. However I do expect the next system to be quite powerful but they won't allow it to bleed them money and price it too high for the average consumer.
The main thing is having enough RAM and making the system by design much easier for developers.
That sounds great to me, I'm tired of all the bugs in some games because devs find it difficult. I do admit I was hoping the PS4 would be stronger graphics department, but I am content with its currently reported (rumored) specs. Sony making the console affordable is a lot more important than giving it super high tech graphics. A lot of you might not know the vary high cost of some of the more powerful graphics cards. Its still going to look and run better than games on current gen consoles, it may not be the 50x than PS3 better super computer that we wanted, but our games will look better and run a lot more smoothly in full 1080p 60fps ;). I really hope the PS4 will have the rumored 4gb of ram, if so it's going to be pure awesomeness. Bigger, Better, Prettier games on the PS4 :P, fornow everything is just a rumor.
makes no sense. Considering there is no scale to gauge its power, how can it be determined the wii-u is "underpowered"?
It represents a significant leap as compared to the wii. It surpasses the current offerings by MS and sony. It is offering to the devs more freedom with more memory to work with and a larger disc format. How is that underpowered when there isnt another "console" on the market that equals or exceeds that?
Those using PC's as a gauge are using it the wrong way. The modular nature of a PC allows for the expansion of future hardware. That convenience comes at a much higher price than that of the closed nature of a console.
No doubt the next xbox and PS will be more than their current systems when it comes to specs. But they will not be revolutionary in terms of those specs. If anything we will see a much greater expansion of the amount of memory available. The (finally) adoption of a higher capacity format that will either be unified or custom but we wont be going back to compressed nature of the DVD9.
What will likely happen is the current fidelity we see will be improved by way of the finer details we dont pay attention to. CPU/GPU performance will get a bump but the bigger picture will be about memory and convergence of features to really make these platforms the go to for everything.
Anywho, as I said the PS4 will be slightly better than the Wii U if they ONLY USE THE A10 APU and it's dedicated GPU. They could easily make that console sell for $300 and break even day 1 by fall 2013
PS4
A10 APU
4GB RAM
500GB HDD
$299
That being said the rumor of having 8GB - 16GB screams the PS4 will be running Xfire with something else, and the most likely thing would be a dedicated GPU. Their best bets for GPU's are:
1. HD 7870 (The PS4 you want)
2. HD 6970
3. HD 6950
4. HD 7850
5. HD 6870 (Might struggle with 3D aspect if running 1080p @ 60fps)
Those GPU's should be enough to reach their goal of 1080p @ 60fps + 3D, while also offering a great blend of price to performance ratio for what Sony needs and is trying to spend. By Holiday 2013 they should all be in the $100 - $199 price range (since the HD 8000's series will likely be out by then).
It's possible to come up with a $400 PS4 ($400 is the magic number) with one of those GPU thrown in with the rumored specs. but the better the GPU the greater the loss Sony will take on Day 1, so it's a balance.
Lol, since wii u is on par with ps3...just use your brain.
"Sony cannot afford to take such huge losses again, it's that simple its business"
don't talk like economist, you don't know anything about $$$ they are making with ps3 (they are selling more than competition since years, are selling games, bluray, etc, it's just huge : sony is loosing money with others departments, and ost of all a too strong yen)
"Its all about the games sir, its all about the games. I believe that is true no matter which console it is."
it should be, but if you were 100% right, sony will be destroying microsoft and nintendo since 2008..
**people are saying bulcraps about last gens, saturn was not more powerfull than ps1, and the gap between ps1§n64, or ps2/gamecube (who came late at the party ! ps2 was the most powerfull console 2,3 years on the market) are not on the same scale than wii/ps3 or wii u/ps4 (probably)
PS3 was the first time they ever had a console with superior graphics to the competition.
PS fans: All those old games you love, all the old classics and good memories were on consoles that were inferior to the competition in terms of graphical capabilities, yet they sold the most, allowing you to get a flood of awesome games for over a decade.
^ I dare you to complain without sounding ignorant.
a 7660 while underpowered by todays pc standards would be MORE than enough on dedicated/static hardware.
the performance of this card Is more than sufficient to push 1080p 30 3d.
for less graphically intense apps 1080p60 3d would be possible
if coulpled with an
"ABizzel1"
1. HD 7870 (The PS4 you want) (OVERKILL)
2. HD 6970 (OVERKILL)
3. HD 6950 (OVERKILL)
4. HD 7850 (OVERKILL)
5. HD 6870 (WILL NOT STRUGGLE with 3D aspect if running 1080p @ 60fps (STILL-OVERKILL)
a system with the a10 7660 coupled with the 7670 dedicated which is dirt cheap would push VERY EASILY 1080p 60 3D on static hardware. both of these are enormously powerful gpu's on their own right and are more than enough to push next generation games without windows in the way of performance.
just trust me i know my shit.
Nintendo knows people are gonna buy their stuff, they need to stop holding back at least for once...try to be on level with the current gen (No..not this gen..ps4 and nextbox isnt out yet)
They are not saying it is lag free in terms of the display - they are saying that transferring data from the console to the Game Pad is done so with zero lag.
Totally different things.
And hardly anything groundbreaking. It was quite an Apple-esque marketing spin they played with that one.
For proper TRUE stereoscopic 3D to run at 60 frames a second you essentially have to render at 120 frames a second. One different frame for each eye.
If you think that you are going to get a visual improvement over the existing generation, 1080p, 3D AND 60 frames a second from anything less than a Radeon 7970 class GPU then you are dreaming.
You'll get 30FPS with a decent improvement and stereoscopic 3D, but not really more from even a 7870.
Personally I don't think that Sony will actually be worried about supporting 3D games as standard and just leave it up to developers again.
They are much more likely to try and make 1080p standard and leave it at that. None of these companies are gonna force 3D on devs in the current climate and they certainly aren't going to tell them they MUST make 60FPS games either.
Developers are not gonna be too excited about busting the budget creating a 3D mode and 60FPS just because Sony or Microsoft et al say so.
how about you all stfu and wait till it come out like a normal human being lol
I do ABSOLUTELY know what im talking about.
7970 is once again overkill.
I understand 192060 is hard to do.
Windows takes about 20% of my communicability to amd or nvidia core arrhythmetic.
consoles have the ability to connect directly and interchangeably between hw and sw.
as well as hardware optimisation by those much more talented than me, equates to plenty of power.
if todays pcs are to be the guage i expect consoles to rival or best pc capabilites in both shader and geometric performance within the 1sr year of release.
not for more than a 6 month period nevertheless stil monstrous and highly optimisable and , programmable.
once again i state 1080P 60 3d will be achievable on consoles within the rumored specifications and rumored lifecycle.
There is NO SUCH THING as graphical overkill if you want to make modern games. This is a fairly obvious statement, because I would quite happily bet you a trillion dollars that LESS than 5 years after the consoles are built, console devs will say that they could do with more RAM, or more GPU performance. You can never have enough power when it comes to an industry that still presses onwards relentlessly with more and more demands for improved performance and critically, performance per watt.
PC's overheads are well known, but exagerrated when a game is actually well coded if you think they are as much as 20 percent. On a good port they are clearly less.
Besides this, even if it WERE always 20 percent, a 7870 plainly cannot manage 90FPS @ 1080p with filters (i.e 25 percent less than 120FPS) on most modern demanding DX11 titles that boast significant visual improvements over the console counterparts.
In fact a 7970 just about manages it, although in some cases even it falls short.
It is pure waffle that a 7870 will do 1080p/60 and stereoscopic 3D on a DX11 title that improves over the console assets. I should know this, considering I have been gaming on PC for well over a decade and also now gaming on PC in 3D for over 2 years.
It'll manage 30-40FPS when 3D is on, but 60 is well out of reach of a 7870 on like Batman AC DX11, Metro 2033 DX11, Battlefield 3 DX11, you name it. Overhead or not.
These games are also going to be years old by the time the new consoles arrive and no longer at the cutting edge of software engines. Games in the future are gonna use and require more performance, not less. Again, not exactly rocket science.
The WiiU is not cheap by any means anytime a company sales at a loss it's because the price of the unit is more than what were paying as a consumer. The WIIU is a beast and when the next game from companys like Retro come out come back and say that.
And as far as I know, Nintendo has never sold their consoles at ridiculously higher prices than their competition, they've always made their prices competitive. Only exception that comes to mind was the 3DS when it launched at $250, and look how it worked out for Nintendo, slashing the price dramatically a few months later.
So yeah, Nintendo actually has a reputation of selling their hardware at sensible prices. The Wii happened to show the biggest price gap when compared to its competitors, that's all, but all Nintendo consoles historically were sold at decent prices, consoles and especially handhelds.
I wasn't bashing Sony fans. It just happens. LOL you guys are sensitive.
You'd think that, but the way people have been denouncing the Wii U (and let's not forget about the Wii) - your sentiment is always as mutual.
Then english isnt your first language. Your comment equates Sony fans to fanboys.
ONTOPIC
Toyota, and Honda dont make the fastest cars but millions buy them. Is it fanboyism? Consumers have choices and only children feel the need to justify their purchases.
I Usually buy Sony products because of the Quality and Tech. so yup I'm buying the PS4. :)
Example look at the best selling games of this gen have not been the best looking.
Look at the ps1 and ps2 they were not as powerful as the there consoles around them but out sold them. The biggest selling point believe it or not is 3rd party games now exclusive games.
This is why nintendo lost alot of the market in the last 2 gans and hadto cchange there approach with the wii as they knew they did not have 3rd party support like sony did and microsoft this gen put alot of money into getting 3rd party support from sony.
This time round the market is different to the ps1 and 2 gen because there are now 2 big market to go for. The core and none core. Nintendo know they managed to get the none core last gen and by letting the add ons for the wii work with the wiiu this should help alot of the none core market upgrade to the wiiu if sonly right but with games like zombieu call of duty ect moving over to support the wiiu it will be a way for nintendo to try and get some of thr core from nintendo.
Microsoft now have kinect that has opened there console to the none core with some big none core games in dance central kinect sports this will help ms again at the start of next gen as they are known as a allround console just like sony.
Sony already have big name games in gt uc and lbp and they are known as a allround company too but therr failing this gen was the price of everything they sold and advertising there products.
If sony can get a next gen move bundled into there console and it all for a price range matching the wiiu and next xbox i see next gen being even closer between sony nintendo and microsoft.
All hardware eventually comes down to a price you will be able to afford.
Why deny those that work hard and save the right purchase something they want early when you will be able to afford it eventually.
I've never really understood this consumer attitude of only having the newest or cheapest thing. I've always purchased based on the quality I want for a reasonable price.
sure, but the masses aren't as reasonable as you, and nor are the biased media that will bash and loom-gloom the system just like they did with PS3 and do with the Vita; the system needs to be $400 just like the 360 launched, coz' anything that is not like the 360/720 will be overlooked or deemed a failure in the US-centric media and the hardcore early adopter will remember how the ps3 turned out in technical terms - not exactly $600 worthy compared to a $400 xbox and with problems
sony,msoft or nintendo do not want to sell at a big loss next gen. this gen showed, ppl wont buy till things are dirt cheap, except ipads why i have know idea.
700-1200 Gigaflops though are about what I expect from it.
PS4 looks to have at least 2-3 Tflops. Since this is the second kit it would be nice to see what GPU its packing. Either way I doubt PS4 breaches $400 bucks. Maybe $450. We will see.
PS4 Kit 1 - A3850 has AMD 6550D(480 Gigaflops) + rumored GPU with 1.8 Tflops (Likely AMD 7870M scaled down) = 2.32 Tflops. That is kit one.
PS4 Kit 2 has A10 APU with AMD 7660D (614 Gigaflops) + say the same GPU or better? = 2.45 Tflops.
Look it up. There are many things that could vary in the upcoming year that could add to that. Considering the performance of the AMD 8000 IGP.
I don't see how Nintendo will effect the power PS4 or Xbox 3 will have.
Sony just released its Q report and they are actually improving and making more money yet still in red but doing better. I think the days of Sony releasing a machine to loose money are over expect ps4 to make a profit from day one no doubt about it
Both ps4 and next Xbox will be more powerful than wiiu and that's not saying wiiu is bad it's just both ms and Sony now knows what Nintendo is offering so they can maybe not beat the tech but maybe make improvements over the tech.
I wasn't a believe that ps4 or Xbox will come out next year fall 2013 but after seeing that both ps3 and xbox360 have slowed down now I feel like its gonna happen. I just hope for one thing that tech isn't rushed and the machines don't have major defects
And funny the GPU wasn't ever mentioned in the latest articles, what going about these YouTube vids "rumors" saying that both orbis/nexbox gpu's is going to be based on AMD's Sea Islands(HD 8xxx)series?
People have been saying this for years
The A10 with no word of other dedicated GPU's or Xfire should we worrying to those who wanted a monster powerhouse, but the PS4 will get the job done, no doubt.
They are creating a powerful machine that will be at a good price, but nothing incredibly revolutionary like the ps2 to ps3.
Sony pretty much shot down any hope of the ps4 being a ps2 to ps3 leap, but that is perfectly fine with me. Just get Naughty Dog to keep up the good work and find out whoever kidnapped the real insomniac team and get them back!
The Last Guardian being pushed to 2014 makes me excited at a launch title.
Was the article from VG247 considered as fact and true now?
I think its best to wait and see what the final and real specs would be from Sony themselves or an actual developer who is in the know.
"Was it confirmed to not have a dedicated GPU or Xfire?" Yes, it has in a way. It has an APU A combo of the GPU and CPU which is not nearly as effecient or pwerful as a dedicated GPU. Not confirmed, but just stated here.
I would assume that dev kit reports would not leave out something as important as another dedicated GPU, but this is all speculation.
Just going off of what has been stated, and what has been stated is showing a capable machine, but will not be making jaws drop.
OT: An APU is actually more efficient than a separate CPU and GPU of the same caliber in both power per price and electicity.
The A10s mentioned in the article currently go for $130 to consumers. So that means if that is all that the PS4 has, it would go for the same or a lower price than the PS3 and graphics would be very comparable.
Not going to happen. But, if there was a dedicated GPU, then the price be about where we expect it and it would do at least 1080p 3D, maybe even 4k.
blue ray drive $50
8GB ram $35
A10 5800K $130
ATI 7970 (supports 4K) $400
mobo, case/w wiring, HDD $100
These are current consumer prices. In a year or 2 years this setup could easily hit the sweet spot on price.
I'm a little skeptical about this. We all know the new video format has been approved by CEA (Consumer Electronic Association)UltraHD aka 4k. Sony already has a couple of 4k projectors on the market right now and plans on releasing it's 4k TV in the near future. I'm pretty sure they're planning on having the ps4 support the resolution with at least one or two games running at 30fps. I agree with you, I'm sure Sony's sticking with Nvidia on the GPU front.
Once Gaikai is switched on, I'd imagine any Sony hardware (including PS2) with an internet connection (fast enough) can play all future games.
This is where the benefit of the Dual-Shock always being the same shape will come in.
It ALSO has a chance to appeal to the 'hardcore' base by providing next-gen type games through the same console.
Something like that.
you never really know what people want until you put it out there...
But Sony bought Gaikai for a reason and they wont let that be wasted money.
maybe this will give people a freaking Hint..the answer is no one who knows is telling anything just yet everything else is just a guess!
this is official word, not from a guess, or hear say this is a actual interview with the man in charge:
Masaaki Tsuruta, CTO of Sony Computer Entertainment:
EVP, Technology Platform and CTO, Sony Computer Entertainment has revealed the roadmap regarding future Playstation technology
this is a custom SOC:
Computer Entertainment, says that the company is working on a system-on-chip (SoC) to underpin the product for "seven to 10 years".
AGAIN THIS INTERVIEW WAS IN EARLY THIS YEAR:
The PlayStation 3 will be at least seven years old by the time its successor arrives, but is generally considered to have lasted longer than was originally expected. A firm launch for the fourth generation console - not to be called PlayStation 4 - was pushed out again late last year.
Here is again what Sony is planning on Using:
Its designed-in longevity is largely a matter of economics. The Cell Broadband Engine that powered the PS3 cost $400m to develop; the main SoC for the incoming console is likely to be a 3D stack incorporating thru-silicon-via technology and could be the first $1bn hardware design project.
Again this is from the EVP! OF THE PLAYSTATION PLATFORM AS A WHOLE in other words the freaking chief design engineer of the platform! not people making a guess.
The headroom Sony will need to achieve all this - or even part of it, assuming that some things on its wishlist will not reach fruition in time - does help to explain why an announcement on the fourth generation PS is taking so long.
He describes the architecture in broad terms: "You are talking about powerful CPU and GPU with extra DSP and programmable logic.
http://mandetech.com/2012/0...
IE: "$1bn hardware design project."
Again let that sink in people!
"$1bn hardware design project."
would over the counter PC parts used in your machine cost 1Billion $$$ to design? think about it!
"The amount of $$$ thrown at something is not a good marker of its end-reliability though. Just look at linux vs windows"
while that is quite true, this is about the hardware design, and the fact the OP's post states the info he is getting is that Sony is using A design thats over the counter, and that development kits have this certain harware chipset in the development kits, which is a rumor. while i just posted info that was from the head hardware CTO over at Sony computer entertainment. one is a guess an the other told what they expect to use. 1 Billion for over the counter parts in the system design? really?
that i would say is very unlikely. Of course we do not have all full info yet, but what we do know is the next playstation is using a custom CPU and GPU for the next playstation after the PS3's 7th year on the market. which flys into the face that the next Playstation is using off the shelf parts being claimed in this OP's info posted.
They never won on graphics before, why start now? It's always about the games, and creating a healthy developer ennviroment that brings the games. That's what they did with PS1, and that's how they started their revolution and stole much of the gaming market. It's what Apple is doing right now.
Sony is making a powerful affordable console, that is fluid and runs games like butter. I love it. "Who doesn't want to play Killzone or Uncharted in 1080p 60FPS?
I can't wait to play my Wii U and PS4. Next gen is going to finally go back to GAMEPLAY and not graphics.
lol i smell troll, ohh wait!
The price of the Nintendo Wii U entertainment system will undoubtedly force competing brands to offer a their next generation platforms at an affordable competitive price point. Console manufacturers are finally learning that if you release at too high of a price, you end up paying the price. The proof is all around us in the gaming spectrum.
After a hand full of pricing mistakes within the current generation of home consoles, and handhelds alike, I find it difficult to believe that anyone will over spec and over price their next generation platform. The videogame market has increasingly become a very unforgiving battlefield. One simple mistake can set business back to the stone ages. The supreme balance of specs, innovation, gaming experiences, and pricing is of strict importance. Though before all of that, everything in the beginning comes down to a competitive price. Something that I believe the Nintendo Wii U entertainment system has nailed.
Rated E For Everyone
If they had a system that could rival a GTX 690, they'd be able to run ultra textures easily, and have some room for future software increases. But the thing with future software, it relies on new tech that isn't available. More ROPS, TAU's, cuda cores, etc. So the power gets sucked up very quickly. That's why you have things like single gpu's beating or pretty much equaling dual gpus from one year earlier. Meanwhile what they get from that is negligible. Since they'd be adding hundreds per console for a one notch gain in PC graphical settings. Hell if they used a GTX690, it would probably double the console price. That's the point. The tech just isn't there.
Sort of like some of those low end Vid cards, that are 2gb, but that's just for marketing, since there is no way if all 2gb was used that the vid card could handle it. It couldn't. So really Sony would be again wasting money trying to wow people with ram that didn't matter. Better than last time, but still overdoing it. At least ram is cheap, so it's not a big deal.
We're not talking about making individual units where people can pick and choose them for their PC. Consoles are one shot deals. So what they put in they have to pay that price under a contract. So they pay through the nose for the first couple of years for that specific CPU, GPU, ram, etc. If it's a high priced one, they have to pay a high price for that GPU on every system is sells into the millions (still lower than a retail graphics card...but still really expensive). People need to remember, today a mid range PC graphics card costs $400. That's the 3rd best card in the lineup.
The greatest depression in history is only starting, 5 years after it did, yep...don't believe what anyone is saying, we have fixed squat, and only made things worse, and it's a world wide depression. So to make these consoles expensive as the last time around, is simply poor thinking. Sure a GTX 690 costs $1000 dollars, but they can make them as it's demanded. For consoles you are making millions of them a year, and you have to sign a contract dictating the price. It's a lot less flexible than Nvidia or ATI can do themselves from what they offer, and they can lower their prices anytime.
It is a supreme balance, and they will be first to market. No one will be significantly better than them, but will be, but all will be poorer than a PC (which wasn't the case with the 360/PS3). Have the gamepad, and included with every Wii U. Nintendo from a business side, hit this out of the park. Cheaper, almost as fast, innovative, and first.
The ps3 and 360 both run our current gen games with 500mb of shared ram and the games looke great...
If the graphical leap is going to be as little as everyone is prognosticating then it doesn't make sense to dump 8gigs worth into the new systems just for graphics.. It does however, make sense to have all of that ram in order to do Multitasking and in game dashboard operations..
You are just speculating and in all honesty your entire longwinded reply sounds like a love letter to nintendo...
I however hope none of this is true
i have a gaming laptop with 8gb ram and i had to open up 4 games, photoshop and couple more programs at the same time to get to 8gb ram!!
You are delusional about ram. The rest of the system needs to be ultra fast and powerful to raise ram usage accordingly.
why in the world would sony downgrade their next system just because the wiiu is weak?
An the world economy also makes the rules.
Didn't Sony just buy GAIKAI for almost 400 Million dollars?
That doesn't sound like "edge of bankruptcy" to me.
Plus what will Sony gain by waiting? Even if they slap in a GTX 690, it won't be 'worlds better'.
The simple fact is, you can spend thousands of dollars for GPU's, and in a couple of years time, a single GPU for $500 will best it.
In the meantime, all that power means you can run a game on ultra with room to spare, but that spare power is gone as better tech handles newer software better.
Thus what you get is something where you have too much power when you don't need it, and not enough when you do a couple of years later.
Above and beyond all this, you have the simple fact that if you have a PC capable of say running BF3 on Ultra...it looks great right?
Well take it down to very high levels. Does it still look great? Sure does.
So why add 300 dollars to the system cost, either some it takes at a loss and some goes to a higher price the consumer will pay, for that miniscule difference?
Then remember all the console manufacturers sign contracts meaning they have to buy at that price for a couple of years, and will be spending that money on that GPU, CPU, etc tens of millions of times over before they can renegotiate, and it still being a more expensive legacy part, that didn't keep up with tech that replaced it.
Giving Nintendo a couple year lead with clearly the most powerful system on the market erodes alot of a market share, again that's bad for a near failing business with Sony.
Also it's something that's not easily made back. Look at how Sony merely tried to maintain it's market share with the PS3 and failed miserably.
People above earlier in the thread say stuff like 'don't talk like an economist.'...no economists sugar coat everything. Looking at the numbers is something economists don't do....they manipulate numbers. Big difference. Sony is not in great shape and was hammered with losing 200-300 per system the first couple of years, along with Apple's inroads in the music market...see Ipod vs walkman/discman. It does not matter how many PS3's they sell, they won't break even.
PS3 will be a loss, a major one for Sony money wise. They have to sell 5-10 units at profit NOW, for every one they sold the first couple of years just to make up the money on the one. Multiply that by all the millions they sold the first couple of years or so, and you see they lost big time. Plus they put in 2005-2006 dollars, and got out 2012 and later dollars.
MS had to deal with RROD and 1 billion dollar charge. (which goes to...make them more powerful..how?)
You simply can't just make them more powerful with a wand. It costs money, and heat, and thus reliability. The tech just isn't there to be significantly better than the Wii U. So if they attempt to do so, they'll spend a ton of money, possibly hamper their reliability, and not get very noticeable results from all of that money.
All three systems will be good, and play great games. But they all will compete on an equal footing.
Remember a single dual GPU graphics card costs $1000-$1100 dollars these days. So people are literally putting in over $2,000 just in graphics cards in their computer by buying two, or three of say the GTX 680 at a total of $1500 or so.
The tech simply isn't there. If they were smart, they'd wait, but by waiting, they'll lose a bunch of market share they spent generations and billions building up. Escalator on the way up, elevator on the way down.
Nintendo set themselves up for a major win with the Wii. They could enter at anytime and make up the tech difference. They took a risk by putting out by far the weakest console, yet won the generation by selling far more. It's important because that decision, set up this situation. It's not that every 'generation' is separate, it all of the decisions along a continuum that create this. Nintendo won. They let Sony and MS bleed themselves and 'need' to hang onto older tech longer than they should have to recoup money, and Nintendo wiggled right in there in the midst of Sony and MS's greatest point of weakness.
Everyone else is busy trying to recoup their losses from this gen, while Nintendo is coming first to market and forcing the issue with a new console now.
They have a shot to erode billions of dollars worth of marketing and investment with shrewd moves and timing.
Nintendo has played this and made Sony and MS look like fools. Seriously, anyone with a brain running Sony and MS would be having heads roll at their corporate offices, because Nintendo has taken them to the woodshed again and set 'next gen' up on their terms, and they won't need to lose alot of money to do it, after by far raking in the most money last gen.
All that AND they will be the only one with a gamepad, the smartglass/vita aren't competitors in that realm, and yet they'll have them in EVERY Wii U owner's hands. Ensuring that game devs will make use of it.
I never owned a Wii. I have a PS3/360/PC (i7 920@4ghz GTX 670). I will have ALL the consoles this time around. But looking at it objectively and through a business, and reality lens, that's how it is.
Hopefully they learned something from Vita...
Competition is ruthless today,one mistake and you are history.
$70-$80 would be a total disaster.I don't think anybody is that stupid,if anything games should be $50.
The PS4 will be as 2x powerful as the high end PC from early 2012
ask any sony fanboy they will confirm my thoughts
hahaha dream on fanboys
even if it does sell, not enough to keep business afloat. and sony knows that, for years they've been selling the PS3 at a loss. fanboys can say "no they're not...", but whether they accept it or not, business-wise they're not doing good.
i myself hope the PS4 will be good, not necessarily graphics-wise. i prefer to have the big 3 companies there, coz it's good for competition and benefits every gamer, fanboy or not.
Agreed. Disk space is the main issue this gen. I wonder if Microsoft will have their own unique storage (unlikely) or will succumb to blu-ray. Microsoft might have to forget their pride and use blu-ray, as I can't really think of anything else.
Ideas people?
Obviously, Sony meant CONSOLES; how could you not comprehend that, even from just that quote?
Even excluding the PS3(and I don't know why you would), the PS1 and PS2 were exceptional consoles in many ways, including having amazing libraries.
Sony's desire to be "best" shows in their hardware and the library of games they bring to said hardware. These things are more important to them than being first on the market, or being the cheapest on store shelves.
They strive to be the best option for console gaming, and I happen to think they make a damn good attempt at that with each device they produce.
The question should be: do you see yourself having fun and being entertained by games on the Wii U? If you don't then hey you just don't but if graphics are your only case for an argument then that is pretty weak man.
I believe Assassin's Creed 3 is also 1080p 60FPS. Why would Mario even need to be at 1080p?
Nice to have some comfirmation that I was indeed correct that PS4 will not be much more powerful than Wii U... Now let's see how many Sony fans complete change their story about supporting inferior hardware.
Why produce a mario game like that when galaxy won game of the year @ 480p 30FPS. Facts are facts the best looking games come out at the end of a consoles life cycle. Plus games should be fun.