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.
i will be happy with ps4 if its bc with ps3 games
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.
@ConanOBrien Sony makes a lot of money on the Software (games)
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.
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
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.
@ 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.
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.
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.
It'll be sooo weird if sony uses blu-ray for ps4. They never used the same format twice on any of their consoles.
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
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.
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
@ 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.
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
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.
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
@karl 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
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.
@Alpha... wtf, mate? Games that focus on gameplay rather than around the PS3 architecture? Dude...
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.
@ 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.
@vulcanpr 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.
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.
That means nothing too expensive... yay!
So they want to make money.. Now, that's a good business plan.
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
but but but ....... M$ is evil !!!!!!!
The PS4 will cost 450$...watch
and cost 450 eu too
No.....anything over $400 just doesn't work.
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.
@Istanbul in the US the PS2 launched @ $299.99. . I also fully expect the PS4 to launch in the US for $400 - 1 penny.
And cost $800 AU in Australia.
You Aussies always get shafted when it comes to electronic goods. I saw an LED 51" TV in Ausland going for $5000 Thats insane.
This is smart, I'm sure they'll keep delivering on amazing products regardless of this statement.
Exactly. All I have to know is that Sony has 21 (I think it's 21, correct me if I'm wrong) first party studios sorely dedicated to making the best exclusives they can possibly make. I think MS has 2 decent first party studios focusing on their 360, and probably the next xbox (again, correct me if I'm wrong) So if you're a gamer it's really a no brainer on which console is going to give you a better investment.
This is only true if you like all 21 studios and buy more games than typical gamers do. Having 21 studios gives Sony platforms more variety so they can cater to a broader audience. Attach rates for each console are pretty similar. Sony customers are spending their money on the same amount of games, just spread out a little more. It's never a bad thing for gamers to have a greater variety to choose from, but it does make it more difficult to be profitable as a dev when you compete with other first party releases along with larger third party companies. This is why Microsoft shed so many of their first party studios. -Death
counter lmaooooooooo i rather buy a dreamcast over and xbox any day of the week yea i said it lol.
"Sony's Network Products & Services division, which overseas the PlayStation business, saw a 0.4% increase in sales to 1,579,300 million yen. Last year's operating loss of 833,000 million yen was turned into an operating profit of 356,000 million yen.PS3 hardware cost reductions and increased software sales were major factors in the turnaround.Sony shipped 14.3 million PS3 systems, 8 million PSP systems and 2.64 million PS2 systems over the year. Software shipments were 147,900,000 for PS3, 46,600,000 for PSP and 16,400,000 for PS2.For the current year, Sony forecasts 15 million PS3 systems, 6 million PSP systems and 4 million PS2 systems." Where would Sony be without PlayStation? anyway, I think there is a 90% chance PS4 will be compatible with PS1, PS2, PS3, PSP, PSN and Minis. 50% chance it will be compatible with NGP games.
A 90% chance? You mean like my new PS3 is compatible with PS2 games? Oh wait
You sir, know very little about emulation.
Not everyone believes in piracy, bub.
@Jack-H: I have no idea what you're talking about. I was referring to the *fact* that emulating a PS3 is basically impossible on any CPU architecture in existence, or that will be in existence in the foreseeable future. The one, and ONLY thing that could bring BC with the PS3 to the PS4 would be another, more advanced, Cell, or the Cell itself, integrated into the PS4. Emulating any sort of parallel architecture is nearly impossible on anything but a more advanced version of the same architecture. The Cell, especially, would be difficult to emulate, due to the ringbus, and unusual nature of the SPU localstore and DMA units. Oops did I say "difficult"? I meant *impossible*. Believing (and stating) otherwise is basically a confession of computer hardware, and emulation, ignorance. Single-core architectures are not anywhere near as difficult to emulate, since they can often be emulated through simple reinterpretation of machine code, and recompiliation -- hence, PS1, PS2 (which is pseudo-parallel, but pretty slow), and PSP BC is completely reasonable. PS3? No. Nope. And also, no, again.
Well I think there's a good chance Sony will implement a more advanced cell in the PS4. So if that happens we might see PS3 BC.
One thing that Sony future console needs -BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY! man this was one of the main things besides price(at the time when it came out) kept me from getting a ps3. I had loads of ps2 games that soon became useless(not 100% seeing as my ps2 still could of played them) after hearing ps3 won't run them.
My PS3 runs PS2 games fine so does my PS2 and PC.While BC is nice you should never expect something for free.BC cost money even when there is no hardware involved.Now after saying that I believe Sony should give the option to the consumers who want BC.They could sell you a PS2 emulator that runs on PS3.That money would be able to fund the improving of the software.Its not even like they would need to start from scratch,They already have emulation software that runs over 80% of PS2 games on certain PS3's without the EE.
It will need to have the Cell processor again or a new better derivative, there's no way anything out in the next5-10 years could fully emulate that thing.
"It will need to have the Cell processor again or a new better derivative, there's no way anything out in the next5-10 years could fully emulate that thing." Finally someone who understands. I actually think 5-10 years, with a non-Cell design, is a pretty aggressive estimate though.
Ultimate PS console, BC with: PSX PS2 PSP (inc Minis) PS Suite PS3
Its good they're making a profit now and PS3 will continue selling profiting through its 10 year cycle. I'm thinking they will make some upgrades to the cell for PS4 and add a bit more ram.
Makes sense really. Look at teh NGP, they didnt develop anything super special for it and its sounding fantastic. Its easier, more cost efficient, and easier for devs to make games for well established hardware desings.
I would imagine because the Cell will still hold up due to recent advances and Sony controlling the manufacturing of the Cell processors, eliminating a reliance on 3rd party shortages,delays,price hikes and what not. Its huge to own their own processor tech. Sony got burned with the Emotion engine bad(thus no b/c now)and they have made strides that allow them to be more independent from external manufacturing costs. HDD,RAM,Power supplies,Optical drives,ethernet ports,wifi boards and just about everything else from what you'd expect in a console have all gotten drastically cheaper since the launch of the PS3 so again. I'd imagine Sony doesn't expect to invest a lot in the next gen. They already have.
exactly ! think about it sony already have a huge advantage at keeping the cost low. bluray check cell ( modified ) check , all they need is more ram and better tools for use and hey presto cheap ps4 and hopefully theyll allow for some external upgrading to future proof it more .
Definitely more upgrades. I'm completely lost to why the PS3 never got a Wireless N upgrade or peripheral(better range,speed and stability?). I'd definitely hope this next round utilizes some of the recent advancements in data transfer like USB 3.0 or Thunderbolt. Installing from a stick or drive could go loads faster than what we have to deal with now. Imagine a BD sized file that could get transferred to your HDD at 10Gbps!
Sony produced the EE to with Toshiba .Its just expensive to produce it was a great processor for its time with certain aspects performing better then the Cell. Im sure it will use USB 3.0
Yeah I remember that Sony had a hand in its design but the issue was the vendors who supplied the materials and I believe Toshiba housed the plant. Something led to the high cost that Sony felt was unfair. If I find that article, I'll post it. I read Sony is supporting Thunderbolt to a certain extent. I prefer the Thunderbolt connection over USB 3.0(only slightly) in this respect because it carries HD Video/Audio along with separate data transfer on the same cable. That and Thunderbolt can daisy chain. Imagine Hooking up one tv to your PS4 and then connecting your HDTV to another HDTV(instead of split screen) for some unparalleled Multiplayer but only using one console. Check out the demo for thunderbolt its an exciting tech.
Please do post the article.As the only reason I have every herd was the production cost of supporting both the Cell and the EE for the entire life of the PS3 wouldn't be in Sony's best interest.
The Cell is scalable tech. Sure the initial investment for Sony was substantial, but now that the foundation is layed out, Sony can upgrade Cell architecture at a minimum cost.
The investment behind the PS3 was primarily due to the introduction of Blu-Ray, and to some extent Cell tech. They don't NEED to spend the same kind of up-front investment again. The PS3 was an unusual case.
Cell/Parallel processing tech was a huge investment for Sony. This more than likely means now that Cell tech has been established, no real need to pour in so much cash into R&D of Cell tech and focused more on how to optimise it for the next console. It's possible Sony just might drop the GPU all together and opt for Cell based rendering. Most of Sony's exclusive games are rendered mostly off the Cell B.E then straight off the RSX.
They won't drop the gpu.Devs could hardly handle writing code to run on the cell using it as nothing more then a standard processor.Now as a dedicated GPU most would just drop the system claiming its impossible to code for.
The Cell is a great CPU design, but its never going to replace mega-parallel GPU cores, when it comes to embarrassingly parallel tasks like rendering. I have no idea why Sony ever thought that was a good idea.
The Cell B.E can number crunch and being dated tech still can keep up with the best of them and it really is all about the numbers. Cell can video render on its own and is used in the medicial field for HD rendering. It is feasible to have 2-3 PPEs with a total of 20-30 satellite SPEs. Plus using highspeed ram would have many advantages. Lack of a typical gpu would bring the price/heat down as well. The SDKs are out there and alot of developers know the language of the Cell design. Sony likes to think outside the box. I would not be surprised if they went this route. Anything is possible...
How about a faster Cell, with maybe a dual-core PPU and some extra SPUs? PS3 BC would be fairly trivial, but combined with an updated GPU it'd be plenty powerful for next-gen games. Still a different architecture from other consoles, but by now developers have a handle on that architecture...
Dual core cell isnt as simple as it sounds. The cell has a completely different architecture form normal CPU's and cannot scale like them.
Part of the Cell - the "Power Processing Unit" or "PPU" - is a more-or-less standard Power RISC CPU. I was talking about making that part dual-core. I'm sure the interface from two PPUs to the SPUs would be tricky, but considering that the other consoles are going to have multiple cores, it might make porting multi-threaded code a bit simpler.
@ socerer171, if they went that way they may as well just run cluster 2x cell as we know them paired to an off the shelf opteron or phenom 2 thats the basics of ibms cell servers the opteron handles general tasks and alocates to the cells it owuld work and if cell die shrinks to 32 or 25 then a x2 cell die might be possible at the same silocon price as a single cell today
@awiseman - Rubbish, Cell does scale very well, thats why it's used in various prouducts with verying degrees of power consumption, SPU's etc. IBM already make servers that use Two cell chips.