Sony: No Plans For PS3-type Investment For Future Consoles

Sony's massive initial expenditures for the PlayStation 3 lead to years of losses. This is something that apparently won't be repeated for future platforms.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
THC CELL2678d ago

i will be happy with ps4 if its bc with ps3 games

Peaceful_Jelly2678d ago

me too man. I just bought a PS2 for PS1 and PS2 games and I would be happy if the PS4 offers at least PS3 BC but if they could add PS1 and PS2 emulation too then I would buy like 3 consoles just to have spares if they come and remove it all together with later releases... My 60GB died and I don't like buying used consoles.

ConanOBrien2678d ago Show
the_best_player2678d ago (Edited 2678d ago )

Sony makes a lot of money on the Software (games)

blumatt2678d ago (Edited 2678d ago )

Well this obviously means that the PS4 will still use the Cell processor, or maybe 2 or 3, and have upgraded RAM (probably around 4GB, maybe 8GB). This means that Backward Compatibility will be a non-issue for the PS4. It'll for sure play PS3 games.

This is also good news regarding the price of the PS4. Since there won't be any expensive investment in new tech for the PS4, it will NOT be priced like the PS3 was. We can expect a PS4 somewhere in the range of $400, not much higher.

So, the games will be there and the price will be there. I'm hoping for Killzone 4, Gran Turismo 6, and Uncharted 4 as launch titles. Those would guarantee a great launch for the PS4.
EDIT: And the PS4 will likely use a faster bluray drive for its games. The games will be able to be bought in store (on bluray) or via the PS Store (digitally). Just speculation, but it seems probable.

b163o12678d ago

As long as Sony focuses on gaming and there online services they should be ok, we don't care about the next best thing as far as new formats just get back to why we purchased ps1&2's GAMING

BattleAxe2678d ago (Edited 2678d ago )

I'm sure that alot of the development costs were partially due to the creation of the PSN. All they really need to do is add more RAM and drop in a 16 Core Cell Processor. I wish they'd come out with a limited edition PS3 in a PS2 case....that would be awesome.

DarkTower8052678d ago

@ Blumatt, it would be pretty cool in the PS4 launched with Heavenly Sword 2 and Lair 2 lol. Seriously though, I think the next GOW might be a PS4 launch title.

AAACE52678d ago

They really wouldn't have to do much on a Ps4! They could modify the CELL a bit, add a gig or two and put in a new graphics card.

More powerful system and still BC! Not to mention they could keep the price low by doing this.

thereapersson2678d ago

Considering the CELL and other tech was so brand new at the time and had never been done before. The groundwork for a new console is already laid out.

Now, that's not to say that they shouldn't continue researching new technology that will provide progress for the industry. Sony is always coming up with ideas and concepts that are always ahead of their time, or just a bit too "niche" for the market.

FACTUAL evidence2678d ago

It'll be sooo weird if sony uses blu-ray for ps4. They never used the same format twice on any of their consoles.

Nemo882678d ago

This should have been a given to anyone with sense.

They would be insane to make the same mistakes again.

If Sony has any sense, they will want to eliminate 2 of the biggest complaints: price, and difficult to code for.

Price can be kept in check by not introducing new storage format, which thankfully they dont need to, as bluray can go up to over 100GB nowadays.
Further, stick with the cell, so no expensive new cpus which as I understand is scalable (just stack 2-3, more cache per SPE etc.) and wasnt the bottleneck with PS3 anyways, its the GPU.

OR go with off the shelf/mass produced CPUs like the NGP.

People know how to code for the cell now so either stick with it, or go off the shelf/more standard architecture, and no complaints from devs.

And Please dont skimp on ram for a change SOny.

And keep working on PSN. And obviously sort security :D

HolyOrangeCows2678d ago

Well, they won the HD disc format war and ultimately learned that there wasn't a very big consumer market for the cell (but made some big contracts with it). I think as far as the investments are concerned, they paid off.

And unless Sony has another new technology to push, then of course they won't.

Improve the read speed for the blu-ray drive next-gen, and perhaps you should go with a more traditional CPU/GPU for the developers' sakes.

badz1492678d ago (Edited 2678d ago )

The CELL is pretty much capable of high end gaming and what the next PS needs to outdo the PS3 entirely is just a better GPU and more RAM. this is definitely just my thoughts but moving away from CELL will mean no PS3 BC for PS4 just like how Sony is struggling to emulate the less powerful EE & GS of the PS2 ON PS3. I don't think Sony would want THAT again

ravinash2678d ago (Edited 2678d ago )

@ FACTUAL evidence

With the number of years between PS1, 2 and 3 we went from CD - DVD to BlueRay.
With more layers on Blueray there won't be any point in updating to something else yet, seeing as there isn't anything else.

Plus one of the big arguments these days is for downloadable content only...I think all the events that happened to PSN will make all the companies think twice before going down that road.

+ Show (10) more repliesLast reply 2678d ago
fluffydelusions2678d ago

They have learned from their mistakes as can already be seen with the NGP. PS4 will be easy to develop for just like PC/360

ProjectVulcan2678d ago (Edited 2678d ago )

One of the main reasons PS3 cost so much to develop was because Sony took it upon themselves to develop their own processor with IBM and Toshiba.

NGP uses an off the shelf chipset (an ARM CPU, with PowerVR graphics) with mild customisations.

Sony can massively reduce the development costs of their next machine by buying off the shelf components and designs, thereby letting IBM/Intel/Nvidia/Whoever foot the bill for the development of those components.

This worked fairly well for the original Xbox, it also meant the console could be brought to market faster as soon as enough components had built up in the supply channel.

karl2678d ago

it was a mistake cuz people didnt support them

even though the price has gone down and still is a really great piece of technology ..

this only means a cheap ass console next time..

that doesnt sound to great for me....

if people would realize the time of investment sony made and buy the damn thing maybe they would make a similar move next time..

and who would be benefit from it? US

-Alpha2678d ago


It's hard for people to support such a complicated product when the competition has two platforms (PC and 360) that were able to do things efficiently.

You can't blame people for getting frustrated and then say it's their fault that Sony suffered.

You complain about a cheap ass console, since when is it all about raw power? PS4, by the sound of things, will be on level with standard console expectations, and that's by no means a bad thing. Maybe now we will get more games that can focus on gameplay and other matters instead of working on PS3 architecture.

The PS2 was weaker than the original XBox yet it's considered one of the best. Power isn't everything

SoapShoes2678d ago

The thing I always thought was great about Sony consoles is that they used their OWN technology. PS1 and PS2 used their own powerful technology and so did the PS3. If the PS4 uses off the shelf parts, how could it ever be ahead of the pack?

Heck pretty much all consoles until the Xbox used their own technology instead of PC junk.

SoapShoes2678d ago

@Alpha... wtf, mate? Games that focus on gameplay rather than around the PS3 architecture? Dude...

gamingdroid2678d ago

That is well put!

Time and time again, it isn't necessarily the best technology that wins. It is the combination of technology and price to overall value FOR THE CONSUMER.

PS2 is a perfect example of how superior technology in the Xbox, didn't garner it much attention. Neither did the more powerful PC or GameCube.

It still amazes me until this day how the PS3 actually survived and the market share is on par with the Xbox 360 considering at the time of it's release it was way expensive, had very limited support, inferior multi-platform games and PSN was very much in it's infancy.

ProjectVulcan2678d ago (Edited 2678d ago )

@ Estranged- like how was the xbox more powerful than PS2 and Gamecube. It used off the shelf parts. It was later to market, but used fairly recent components to build it, which cost microsoft nothing to develop. A year is all the difference in this industry- Designing your own parts may be well and good but it costs a huge amount and any delays mean that you lose advantage anyway.

Timing is everything in this industry, one year you design a chip and have problems with it, by the time you get it out the industry has moved on and other companies can make better parts for the same money. This is similar to what sony are talking about here, the delay in launching PS3 was down to hardware problems and there is little question that PS3 could be in a better position still today if it had launched on time right?

NGP is the smart choice, by using off the shelf parts sony minimalise hardware dev cost, get proven reliable technology on time and in budget.

Sony can delay their machine until the opportune time to finalise specs, for example, start building it as soon as the latest silicon process is stable and ready. This is something far more difficult to do when you make your own processors.

Fallouts2678d ago


No that did not work out well for the xbox at all. You do know that because ms had nothing to do with the parts is the very reason why they had no choice but to ditch it and realease the 360.

I forgot who ms used but they would not lower the price on the parts and couldn't make a profit at all and considering how well the ps2 was doing ms just couldn't continue with the xbox.

That's why ms was much more hands on this gen for good and bad. Bad being the rrod they tried to do something themselves and fucked up. Good cause they make money off the 360.

I also read that ms pretty much stole all the research info Sony paid for to use on the ps3. Crazy.... But oh well I'm enjoying all 3 consoles.

ProjectVulcan2678d ago (Edited 2678d ago )

It did work out for microsoft. They wanted to launch a machine fairly quickly, powerful, and get a foot in the industry well over a year after PS2 launched. In those respects, it was a success and made a reasonable impact.

Microsoft learnt lessons from xbox, that to own the rights for the design rather than buy the chips. This was the main problem with the cost of manufacture with xbox, along with the hard drives. That doesn't mean you cannot license and buy a design off the shelf. Sony and microsoft both learnt from that, and they both still own the designs for their GPUs this generation.

Microsoft also managed to get their CPU design done for 360 with someone else footing most of the bill...we now know that microsoft hijacked the PPU or the main core for their own triple core chip out of CELL, at a fraction of the cost STI spent developing it for their own use. Not only that, it was also ready for manufacture faster despite coming in so late in the design stage!

Sony are highly unlikely to invest that sort of cash again into developing a CPU. It cost them billions. PS3 sold at a loss for years, much longer than PS1 or 2 hence its still relatively high price. They can cut costs dramatically by choosing an existing design, closer to finalising the specs of a new machine.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 2678d ago
DarkCharizard_2678d ago (Edited 2678d ago )

That means nothing too expensive... yay!

Kee2678d ago

So they want to make money..
Now, that's a good business plan.

Max_Dissatisfaction2678d ago

Lol, i just imagined the reaction here if your comment was about Microsoft. You'd be told you shouldn't care that they make money, you should care about playing games

kreate2678d ago

but but but ....... M$ is evil !!!!!!!

DaThreats2678d ago

The PS4 will cost 450$

Winning2678d ago

No.....anything over $400 just doesn't work.

Istanbull2678d ago

Then you're probably too young to remember that PS2 launched at 499 euros here in Europe. I dont know how much it was at launch in America, but here in Europe back in 2001 it was 499 euros.

C0MPUT3R2678d ago

@Istanbul in the US the PS2 launched @ $299.99.
I also fully expect the PS4 to launch in the US for $400 - 1 penny.

jessupj2678d ago

And cost $800 AU in Australia.

LocO_o2678d ago

You Aussies always get shafted when it comes to electronic goods.

I saw an LED 51" TV in Ausland going for $5000 Thats insane.