Top
240°

Is It Still Too Early to Announce PS5 and Xbox Two?

Jett: Are we console gamers ready for the announcement of the PS5 and Xbox Two? I’m pretty sure that most of us are still having a lot of fun with our PS4’s and Xbox One’s, especially with all the amazing games we have on both consoles. However, as our consoles age, technology advances even further.

With that said, one can’t help but wonder if either Sony or Microsoft are already in the final stages of creating their next generation consoles and are just waiting for the go signal from the higherups to make the announcement.

Read Full Story >>
sirusgaming.com
The story is too old to be commented.
seanpitt23203d ago

They will announce the ps5 Q1/Q2 2019 for a possible fall release date might be mushed back to 2020 depending if there AAA games get delayed. Don't forget they need to be making games for the launch ps5 which at the moment all there Devs are busy with ps4 titles right now.

OB1Biker202d ago (Edited 202d ago )

I agree except for I think there r already games being developed for PS5 right now.
I m sure everyone thinks there's no rush though.

The 10th Rider202d ago

Yeah, I'm guessing GG is already looking on to the PS5. Imagine if they put out. A Horizon 2 as a PS5 launch title or for the console's first year?

_-EDMIX-_202d ago (Edited 202d ago )

Agreed I think a lot of us might disagree on an announcement or release date but I think it's undeniable that Sony very very very likely has PlayStation 5 games already being developed.

Games like the order 1886 were being developed as far back as 2010 Horizon zero Dawn was being developed in 2011 and even Assassin's Creed Unity started his development in 2010.

So it is not really unusual that some development teams are in stages of development for next generational games.

@10- I actually think it's very likely that a portion of Guerilla Games is actually working on Killzone to Launch with PlayStation 5 as to test the technology and I believe the other half is actually going to release Horizon zero Dawn 2 on PlayStation 4's you have to understand that they still wants to capitalize on their investment, selling software is the game.

So I think it's very unlikely that Sony is going to waste a near 100 million install base by not releasing Horizon zero Dawn 2 on PlayStation 4.

I mean I would argue the entire point of a high install base for Sony is to sell software in the first place so it doesn't really make sense for them to launch PlayStation 5 with such a game where is I would see it making a little more sense for a title like Killzone.

Mr_Writer85202d ago (Edited 202d ago )

If they're both BC it's less of an issue.

Release cross platform game, release a next gen upgrade a month or two after (or same day).

Problem solved.

FinalFantasyFanatic201d ago

The ps5 could be BC, the ps4 definitely won't, that's a guarantee.

Mr_Writer85201d ago

@final

I meant PS5 and next box both being BC.

FinalFantasyFanatic200d ago

@Mr_Writer85,

Sorry, misunderstood your intentions.

Tapani202d ago

I think it has more to do with the tech than games. I've been today trying to figure out with the AMD Zen+ leaks that reveal at least a bit what the next PS5 could look like, but I don't know... these chips are 8/16 cores/threads and cost a lot... and the AMD GPUs haven't really evolved that much from the R580 days which the Pro has. They need to probably aim at 30fps 4K native with higher fidelity visuals, because 4K 60fps is not going to fly if the hardware is finished Q1 2019 and put into production for Q4 2019 release. Maybe that's why there has been rumours flying that Sony is stalling the development? (A wireless PSVR2 might still take time too, but it won't prolly be bundled. PS4 games and one or two launch games will do for PS5.)

FinalFantasyFanatic201d ago (Edited 201d ago )

Wouldn't you be looking more so at the ryzen apus rather than just the cpus? I think it's unlikely they'll use dedicated GPUs but you never know for sure what's planned for next gen.

Ryzen's fairly cheap compared to the Intel equivalent though, 8c/16t are fairly cheap to buy now for that reason.

I strongly doubt we'll see 4k, I can say with absolute confidence we'll get something between 1080p and 4k. I'll be more shocked if we do get native 4k (some people dream a little too big).

Fantomex202d ago

Still too early. PS4 has a lot of potential left in it still, and the userbase keeps expanding. Fall 2021 at the earliest. That way we can get an insanely powerful console with 5nm chipsets, 18-20TFLOPs, 24-32GB RAM for $400-450.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 200d ago
jhoward585203d ago

I'd say wait until 2020 to release the next-gen console simply because I don't want the next-gen gaming to have a mobile processor like ps4/xbox one x. By 2020, there will be 5nm - 7nm CPU/GPU available on the market. The 5nm - the 7nm process should give us a gaming console that is 40-50% power boost over the previous gaming console. Plus, using a 5nm -7nm processor means less heat generated by at least 70%. That's a lot of improvement compared to the 16 nm FinFET process used in the PS4 pro/XBOX ONE X.

The 10th Rider202d ago

But consoles don't usually have the newest piece of tech in them. To make use of 7nm the Ps5/Xbox2 would probably be 2021 or 2022.

jhoward585202d ago (Edited 202d ago )

The 7nm processor is scheduled to come out next year(2019) followed by a 5nm processor scheduled to release in 2020. So by 2020, the 7nm process would be considered old tech.

Xenophon_York202d ago

I was thinking the same think regarding not having the top-of-the-line 5nm processor technology. Ever since Sony tried the bleeding edge hardware—and bleeding heart prices to match—with the PlayStation 3 the company has worked smarter with the overall architecture of the entire system—including OS—than rely on having the biggest and loudest 'engine.'

FinalFantasyFanatic201d ago

It won't be cutting edge that's for sure, the Xone and ps4 (and now the Switch) are under powered for their time. All the companies will be looking at that price performance ratio, if it's too expensive it won't sell.

ziggurcat203d ago

We probably won't hear anything until late 2019/early 2020 followed by a presentation around E3 or even Gamescom/PSX/etc...

strayanalog202d ago

Definitely too early. A 2019 announcement could happen with a launch in 2020 or a 2020 announcement and launch, but if I had to pick I'd go for that last one. '20 just seems like a good launch year.

A better question is: who do you think will make the announcement first?

Vasto202d ago (Edited 202d ago )

PS4 Pro and Xbox ONe X just came out.

I don't want to hear anything about a new console before 2020 with possible launch in 2021. LIke I said before, Native 4K / 60FPS is a must so until that is possible I am happy with what I have. Even it I have to wait another 5 years.

paintedgamer1984202d ago

The pro came out 3 years after the ps4 from 2013 so 3 years after the pro seems right to me. And the pro didnt just come out. This nov it turns 2.

Vasto202d ago

@_-EDMIX-_

Common sense had to kick in at some point. How are you not getting what I am saying?

I said it should always be up the devs to make their games the way the want. I am talking about Hardware, not Software.

The Hardware needs to be capable of 4k/60 FPS. The reason why we are not getting 60FPS with PS4 / Xbox ONe is because the hardware is not capable.

_-EDMIX-_202d ago

Native 4K 60 frames is not a mandatory because no console makers Sony Nintendo Microsoft what have you, can really force any development team to use those type of specifications. That is something that is developer dependent that literally has absolutely nothing to actually do with the system itself.

I mean I want you to consider that there are many Xbox One X Games that are not running 60 frames and there are few PlayStation 4 pro games that are not running 60 frames and it is not because they can't it is simply because the development team does not even believe some of the graphical sacrifice is worth it to hit those specific numbers which actually means it is dependent upon developer not system.

So Microsoft Sony Nintendo what have you could release a powerful system, that doesn't actually mean that I game developer out of the gate is going to seek those numbers for all you know they could really something in 1080P 30 frames because they want to use the extra GPU Headroom for different effects

So I'm not disagreeing with your entire post but please you guys need to put the rest of this stupid notion that the system is performing those things because of developer actually is the one that makes the choice to whether or not they even want that with their game based on their engine or based on what they're trying to achieve.

Vasto202d ago (Edited 202d ago )

@_-EDMIX-_

I never said mandatory. They need to capable of achieving 60FPS. The current consoles are just not strong enough.

It should always be up to the developers of how to do their games but one thing they should not be able to say anymore is that the systems are not powerful enough.

If the system is powerful enough to achieve 60FPS they will do it. Devs want to see their games running at their best on every platform its available.

_-EDMIX-_202d ago (Edited 202d ago )

@vast-resolution is developer dependent

maybe you could understand that cuz your entire post is a complete waste if you don't actually know that....

So once again you need to ask a developer to do that not the console manufacturer because that's technically determined by them when they create their game engine.

BigTrain202d ago

Vasto isnt denying that the devs are in control with that decision. He's saying that the decision itself is normally dependent upon the strength of the console itself. I worked for various developers and can tell you that all of them across the board decided what resolution and graphical features they'd implement based off of the power of the console. If the console didnt have the juice features were cut, it was that simple. If the manufacturer makes a beast of a console it will most likely cause the dev to implement 4K @ 60fps due to the machine itself having not having blatant limitations.

_-EDMIX-_202d ago

@big-nobody it's not a little dependent , it is completely 100% depending on choice of the developer.

Developer wanted 1080p 60 frames on a system all they would actually need to do is make the game Run on an engine that supported such a concept

PlayStation 3 with Wipeout ran 1080p 60 frames native.

So before such a thing as talked about the developer must choose the engine they must choose the type of game they're working on all of these things are open developer choice.

Soooo it is developer dependent trust me it has a very very little to actually do with the hardware itself because one would argue if you wanted to hit that number so damn badly all you would have to do is run a previous generation engine just like Titanfall did running source.

Because what you're actually trying to say is that the developer struggling to do something that technically speaking can be achieved by simply using lesser assets. Cuz you would have to be pretty stupid developer to struggle to do such a thing that is pretty damn obvious.

Lower your assets and use an engine that supports those settings it is not actually something that is rocket science in fact I would argue it's pretty damn simple if all you want or those numbers, I mean it would be like trying to say you can't get Final Fantasy 8 to run 1080p 60 frames or 4K 60 frames yet you're completely ignoring the damn game is a Playstation One game.

The game determines those settings FIRST.

So PlayStation 4 and Xbox One are not struggling to run 1080p 60 frames there actually struggling to run 1080p 60 frames with specific engines that are DEMANDING, so if you want to believe that the hardware is magically making something happen by that argument The Last of Us on PlayStation 3 should have been 1080p 60 frames based on Wipeout being 1080p 60 frames.

So are you sure the PlayStation 3 is doing 1080p 60 or is Wipeout doing 1080p 60? Once you understand that you'll understand this decision decision solely relies on the developer.

Sony and Microsoft could make the most powerful systems to date that's still not going to stop developers from choosing to not max out the resolution if they want to have something more lifelike and reduce the resolution.

That actually means regardless of how powerful it is the developer is still going to choose to lower the resolution.

Which actually means it doesn't matter what Sony or Microsoft does because the developer is always going to choose to use the GPU a different way so I'm not really sure why you or anyone else is having a hard time understanding this.

BigTrain201d ago

You're saying, the decision is solely dependent upon the devs choice. That is not completely true. I know it is not and I stated why its not in my first response. I have years of experience in dev houses and have sat in many production meetings for Alpha state titles and have witnessed time and time again those meetings close out with the decision to make the game run at a lower state due to hardware limitations. I've got years of actual evidence and experience to the contrary. Why you wouldn't understand that is funny to me.

_-EDMIX-_201d ago (Edited 201d ago )

@big- if you're a game developer that you also know this is something that varies game to game in actually must be factored with the game being made before anything else, which actually means for argument's sake if you made a PlayStation one looking game 1080p 60 frames would not actually even be a hurdle it would be something by default.

Based on your logic you're going to have to explain how Wipeout exist on PlayStation 3 on 1080P 60 frames this goes to show you that this is something that varies based on the actual game many times before you even factor the system.

So before you question whether or not A system can achieve 1080p 60 frames or any type of setting you actually first must know the game that's even being referenced in the first place because that is actually what is determining whether something like that is feasible.

It would be like trying to tell someone the exact computer they need to buy to play 1080p 60 frames, yet you never ask them what game they're trying to run and it turns out it's the Sims 1 or the first myst or something like that so you have to understand this varies based on the actual damn game if you're not asking about the game you technically don't even know what you're talking about because that is the source of reference, that is the only way someone can determine that it is something that is determined on game first before anything else.

And I'm having a hard time believing that you have any real role in any game development 😎

I don't know why you thought if you lied about something like that it would somehow give you some sort of credibility but at the end of the day what you're talking about in regards to Hardware limitations is also based on what the team actually wants based on THE ENGINE they've crafted so are you telling me if this team wanted 1080p 60 frames and they went ahead and whipped out a Super Nintendo sprite-based looking game you telling me they're going to struggle to achieve that on current game systems right now?

Are you sure about that? Because it sounds like you're trying to say 1080p 60 frames is difficult no matter the game and game has nothing to do with the actual setting which is ludicrous and doesn't make sense.

So the development team you're talking about was having a hard time based on the actual game they were making which actually means the limitation came after they've already created the damn engine which means it is game developer FIRST.

Electronic Arts chose frostbite over a last-generation dated engine...

But that has nothing to do with actual Hardware that actually has everything to do with the choice of Electronic Arts to create a demanding engine if Electronic Arts wanted 1080p 60 frames no matter what they would have just use Source engine like you saw from Titanfall 1 and 2 for all of their games.

So if you're not ready to talk about the specific game in regards to the engine design what have you you're missing a huge chunk of this equation by only trying to talk about Hardware while conveniently trying to ignore the actual damn game being develop Jesus Christ for all we know this developers making some life like looking game that looks like Crisis 10.0 or something, so are you telling me you're going to leave that out and then try to pretend it's just about the hardware while also talking about the world's most demanding game engine ever created? So are you sure it's just the system and nothing else? 😂😂😂

BigTrain201d ago

"So before you question whether or not A system can achieve 1080p 60 frames or any type of setting you actually first must know the game that's even being referenced in the first place because that is actually what is determining whether something like that is feasible."

I am not saying that the game type itself does not play a role in the decision to make it 1080p @60fps. What I am saying is that the hardware's capabilities, specifically in console development, make up the bulk of the decision a developer makes to even attempt whatever game vision they are trying to make. When a new console is released most devs are trying to establish new IPs out the gate for success into the next generation. Ideas they've had for years are taken into consideration in terms of bringing the title to life. Many concepts have been shelved for years simply because the hardware has to catch up to the vision. The first thing all console devs ask before the dev kit is even ordered is "What type of power are we dealing with?" It's essential to the process of game and engine creation. If the hardware is garbage your vision is limited by default. Can those limitations be minimized due to certain engines being implemented? Yes, of course, but that's what myself and Vasto(maybe) are trying to say. Remove the hardware limitations within the next generation and 60 fps @ 1080p can become a default reality for any developer desiring to make a game without compromising assets. I never said scaling back your vision doesn't address the issue of fps and resolution because I'm not talking about a scaled back vision, and maybe that's where we're not on the same page. I'm talking about next level uncompromising hardware that leaves the developer with no need to compromise due to lack of ram, lack of cpu, gpu raw power. I know this is what is first taken into consideration. I told you already how I know. You choose to question the validity of how I know, that's fine cause you don't know me, but I of course have no need/desire to prove who I am to strangers and at the end of the day it doesn't change what I know to be a fact.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 201d ago
maybelovehate202d ago

iPhone X and Samsung Galaxy 8 just came out as well. Nothing wrong with advancing technology.

Xenophon_York202d ago (Edited 202d ago )

In a nutshell, you nailed the point.
For those who don't want to upgrade for another year or two (edit: after the PlayStation 5 launches): Don't. Sony will still be releasing games for the previous generation's console, albeit with downgraded visuals.

jhoward585202d ago (Edited 202d ago )

@Vasto
I've been thinking...the next-gen console will not run games at 1080p 60fps anymore. I think next gen console will run games at 2k 60fps with the option of running games at 4k 30fps for some games. I personally think some games really need be designed with the highest graphics fidelity to bring the artist's vision to life.

FinalFantasyFanatic201d ago

People don't get this but it won't be 4k 60fps, that's horribly unrealistic unless we wait for another 10 or so years (don't forget how long gpu performance stagnated over the years).

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 201d ago