'A lot more headroom left in the PS3,' claims Sony

The PS3 is far from reaching the end of its life, Sony's deputy president Kaz Hirai has said.

"The plain fact is, the PS3 has grown with the times. The most recent example was the firmware upgrade for all of the PS3s to be 3D compatible, which is something no other console could do. And to this day, there's still a lot more headroom left in the PS3. That, again, is a function of the initial investments we made, both in terms of technology as well as financial investments for the components."

[Godmars290]

Well, you know the way to prove it Sony - Show it in your games!

[dangert]

Course it has not sony had a 10 year plan were just over half way if the ps2 is anything to judge by
'when the hardware starts aging the gems start coming' GOW say hi

[IAmCornHolio]

Lol, the 10 year plan is out. I think you should be thinking more in terms of a 12-15 year plan. Yes, the PS3 will be supported for another 7-10 years from TODAY. The xbox will probably have a similarly long life.

With the WiiU apparently not pushing the performance envelope beyond what the xbox and ps3 already do, neither Sony or Microsoft are under any pressure to release a new console for a good many years. (And I think from a financial perspective neither Sony nor Microsoft wants to release a new console)

So enjoy those cutting edge graphics on your PS3! That is all you are gonna get for another ~4~ years... at least.

[sikbeta]

PS3 needs to follow the same steps as PS2, until it hit the $199 price-tag, we're not even close to see the new PS Console...

[Focker420]

Under halfway there, The PS3 will be 5 years old in November

[vsr]

Every PS gamer from PS1 era knows that. It's not like any other rushed up consoles or PC (frequent upgrade). PlayStation is a legacy. Variety of games spanned over 10 years for every generation.

[gamingdroid]

Personally, I favor a shorter cycle, lower price and more frequent console updates.

PC is really a good reflection of how technology moves forward relative to price. Today I can get a graphics card for $50, that is more powerful than a graphics card released 3-years ago for $300+. If you are a budget PC gamer (in terms of specs), you always reap the most benefit per dollar!

Instead, we are now being held back 10-years, to pay off somebody else's investment!

Wii U I welcome you and hopefully, this will push towards a new cycle faster!

[Silly gameAr]

Hey gamingdroid, if you want to pay $300-$500 for a new console every few years with little to no improvement or innovation over the previous gen of consoles, please be my guess.

I would rather get all that I can get out of the current gen, and then when the next gen rolls around, maybe that $300-$500 dollar investment would be worth it.

[zero_cool]

They already did...

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

[IRetrouk]

the best looking game on consoles and you get dissagres, unbelivable.

[b163o1]

Probably Halo 4 fans who where mad there trailer was CGI

[waterboy]

best on consoles? i love hearing that cause to me its the best on platforms

[SoapShoes]

Of course it still has a lot of headroom, it's still at the PS2's launch price!

[subtenko]

Its Sony PS3, they always prove and out-do themselves. Sony competes with itself since there is no competition left,lol.

The PS3 is a Titan!

[qwertyz]

ps3 isn't a titan anymore can it run crysis 1 ?(not to speak of battlefield 3 at pc quality ?) NO. the crappy rsx and little ram is holding back the cell and you know it

[Eu]

@qwertyz

Well, NOTHING could run Crysis at launch....that was shity code for you...and the say "crunch with overwelming power" is never something a console developer should say, because it shows how his skills are weak.

Sony did what it could with the best specs it had at the time, and it payed up. Exclusives whise, MS and Nintendo, cant compare at all with what the PS3 games are doing or did or will be doing.

The better/efficient/inteligent code the best utilisation of the hardware can be acomplished. Sony devs are destroying other devs becasuse of that.

[qwertyz]

@Eu

sony didn't use the best specs the could. do you know that 2 out of the ps3s spus are not available to game developers ? also do you know that the rsx is a GIMPED 7800gtx much weaker than a real one ? do you know that since the ps3 launched in 2006 sony could have put in a directx10(shader model 4.0) gpu in the ps3 instead of the rsx? sony didn't use the best specs available at the time and no pc could run crysis on highest at launch but some could do high settings which STILL surpasses any game on consoles today unless you really want to say killzone 3 looks better LOL that'd be funny. Aside from all this the ps3 lacks RAM. sony could have put at least 1gb ram in the console they didn't so how can you say they used the best hardware availabe at the time ? that statement is completely FALSE and crysis wasn't too poorly optimized it took so much to run because of its share SCALE, ALMOST completely destructible environments as well as stunning visuals and texture quality so high that it simply can't be touched by this generation of consoles. If you said sony didn't use the best hardware available at the time to save costs that would have been true but saying the cell and rsx was the best hardware of 2007 fails lol did you know that an 8800gtx is more powerful than the cell and rsx COMBINED ? lol even an 8800gts(thas MUCH MUCH weaker) will smoke the ps3s graphics hardware(spus and rsx). you could actually have built a pc in 2006 that surpassed the ps3 in power so what are you talking about? in 2006 a core 2 extreme qx6700 was available as well as the 8800gts/8800gt/8800gtx a pc with these components will smoke the ps3 in EVERYTHING. do you even know that the 8800 gtx has more ram and memory bandwidth than an entire ps3 ? you could even get an 8800gts with more ram and bandwidth than your ps3 lol pcs have been more powerful than consoles even before the ps3 launched the ps3 was never a titan or a beast or a powerful machine. In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king lol

[jke82]

@qwertyz

yeah your right pcs are beasts with way more grapical power and all that but the few things pcs cant do or will ever do (ill make it short)
gran turismo 5,god of war 1,2,3, killzone, and dozens of other exclusives.......

not withstanding im not fond of replaceing/upgradeing my pc everytime a new graphic intesnive game comes out and i gotta spend 100-300$ just to make said game compatible

yeah ill stick to consoles, less overhead, less cost, plenty of games and exclusives, approaching the same level of basic functionality as a computer...thats any console now

[Why o why]

its why many will continue to support the playstation brand. They support their systems even at a loss

[VINNIEPAZ]

Oh and here I thought people bought game systems because they wanted to play games. Thanks for clearing that up

EDIT @ phoenixdown

The fact that Sony loses money or not is in no way a factor if you want to buy something you will want to play. Look at Microsoft and the 1st xbox. They lost a lot there and still went and made the 360 which totally paid off for them. Stop thinking Sony is this almighty company that loves you so much and does all these wonderful things because they are just so cool. They are trying to make money off you like any other business. Things like bluray were added not because they really cared about storage for games but to win the format war with HD DVD which totally paid off for them. Its all about money

[phoenixdown]

and why o why was just saying that the reason he still enjoys consoles from Sony is because they keep bringing the games and features even if it makes they lose a lot of money.

[zero_cool]

Contribute or get the f out don't troll!

[Why o why]

support their systems....its not algebra vinnie..support is games. IF they stop producing games then thats the support gone.

Edit at edit

shut up. Nobody said that. Sony wont give a crap about my life if i fall on hard times. Im just a consumer to them but what they do do is provide me with games especially the types i like with a wider variety than its competitors. They supported their consoles and their medias even at a loss. Conversely you can look at what ms are doing and shifting their focus to the casuals even after how much they do actually make. Nintendo has always looked after their core with support baring the somewhat short life on the game cube. Dont worry i wont give sony any credit on a sony article because it upsets trolls again..

Course they're here to make loot...what company in sony's situation isn't but what im having to tell you is thats its a two way thing. They get my money, I get their games and support for the console i purchased... go whine elsewhere

[Focker420]

Of course Sony wants to make money, but that doesn't mean they don't support their customers. The product needs to be worthwhile otherwise they won't get my cash, and the PS3 was more than worthwhile. I don't shell out $600 just because I like the company.

[M-A-R-S-H-A-L-L]

VINNIE never skips a beat. He's always there to bash the crap out of Sony. Really sad.

[LilDeja93]

Bring on the Games :D

Can't wait to see developers push it to its max .

[perfectCarbonara]

Whatever Sony says is the epitome of truth.

[FlintGREY]

I believe

[Hicken]

I want to believe.

[Falaut]

did they ever unlock that last SPU yet?

...ahem, more RAM!

[TheBrit]

I believe the last spu is a hot spare in case one of the others breaks (those things actually can break) - at least that's what it was supposed to be for a long time ago.

[sorceror171]

One SPU is disabled because, when making chips, defects happen. Some chips don't pass tests, and get thrown out.

But with the PS3, if one of the SPUs is broken, they can still use the chip. It's simply a cost-saving, production issue.

By now, after a few few years, they probably do have good yields and relatively few broken SPUs. But they can't enable an extra SPU in all PS3s, since for many (most?) of those PS3s, the SPU wouldn't work.

More RAM would have been nice, but would also have cost Sony more. You don't have to like the balance they picked, but they didn't do it arbitrarily. And they can't go back and add RAM to PS3s they already sold, so...

[Falaut]

I did not know that, thank you.

as for the RAM thing, I know, its just I'm dumbfounded to this day, because an additional 256 of system ram could not have cost them that much more.

[RandomDude655]

True...just a thought, what if they removed the security feature from the seventh SPU when it nears the last couple years.

they may be able to overclock the GPU (like last gen) also, but all three console makers can. (Or maybe they have recently?)

[KRATOS-PS3]

The last SPU is locked to increase the power effect of the other SPUs.

[EliteDave93]

Im sure there is! its a beast! we dont need PS4 for another 3 years and im glad Sony confirmed yesterday that they are gonna stick with the 10 year plan with the PS3.

[nihonlight]

I could probably give it 3 or 4 more years before I get jaded.
The graphics wowed me early. I'm getting used to them.
Of course some can argue graphics dont necessarily make the game.
But for me, I'm ready for a little more "pop"

[Tru_Ray]

Agreed.

I am very satisfied with the quality of games that they are currently producing, but if they announced the PS4 next year I would be the first in line.

My prediction is that the PS4 will launch in the U.S. in the fall of 2013 for $500 USD.

[Ray J]

.

[Ray J]

haha... nice pic and nickname! :)

and good guess, that's what I thought. by fall 2013 the PS3 will be exactly 7 years old.

[SpinalRemains138]

Face it. If you play consoles, you won't get tired or bored with the performance of PS3 until something comes along that shows it's better.

Since PS3's launch in Nov 06, it has been head and shoulders above the competition. So we will continue to enjoy it. It will get out performed one day of course, but we're still in the era of it's growth.

[Bluemaster77]

Nope marginal would be a much more realistic statement

[Bangladeshimo]

sony has all the right to claim that because they eventually proved it time and again.

[BeastlyRig]

Only time will tell.. But I see more tech wise being done than I think ps3 can handle! Compared to xbox I guess ps3 will more further ahead!

[GoldPS3]

PS3 is gonna win every year from now on. PS3 exclusives are untouchable.

[theonlylolking]

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

ND said“We’ve optimized so much – we always say we’re using 90 percent, 100 percent of the SPUs etc, but what we don’t say is how much we can improve that code so that we can do more with the same amount of processing power, and that’s what we’ve been doing this whole game, and there’s still tons of room left.”

[Aarix]

Wow, one-bubbled prick what the hell is your problem. I see you everywhere trolling all over articles. I just hath to say it, GET THE F*** off playstation dick cause it's getting very pathetic.

[beast242tru]

i think sony will see alot of sales from now on thier E3 showing rocked and its the only company that showed something for everyone i love my ps3 and the exclusive behind it

[Dart89]

Now if only devs would take full advantage of the ps3 and stop making sloppy as ports like they have in the past the games would look better.

Idk why certain devs choose not to take full advantage of it?

[Youjustjelly]

Apparently so does the 360..

http://n4g.com/news/781139/...

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

[mandeep1803]

I really want games to start using all 50GB of dual layer Blu-Ray. They can put full 1080p cutscenes, uncompressed audio, extras, etc. Devs still can't do it because PS3 version will be too different from 360.

[death2smoochie]

When the PS3 can output full 1080p GAMING at above 30 FPS using Real Anti-Aliasing and Dynamic lighting and effects together like PC gaming has been doing for the past 5+ years, then they can say it has a lot more headroom....until then its just PR talk.

[ct03]

PS3 games like Uncharted and Killzone have always had headroom for bigger resolutions and frame rates than 720p30. Developers just *chose* not to use that headroom.

[death2smoochie]

@ct03

You really think that? Really? You HONESTLY believe that?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-0...

So if they COULD make Killzone and Uncharted 1080p@30+ frames per second...

(I won't even mention using Real Anti-Aliasing with that)

Why ON EARTH have they not done this after 5+ years of this consoles life?

Let me put it to you this way:

Other than PSN games and games that do not have intense graphics and or physics, there are NO games on the PS3 that runs at full 1080p@30+fps. Not a single solitary one. See for yourself.

So tell me why those developers CHOOSE not to run their games in 1080p IF THEY COULD HAVE DONE IT?
BTW Killzone 2/3 for example does not even use HDR for its lighting...almost all of the lighting in that game are not dynamic or in real time. Same goes with soft shadow effects and other effects.
If the PS3 was so powerful like a PC as SOME on this site are claiming, why would GG make a game engine in this generation that lacks real time effects and lighting?
Just for you to chew on.....

[HuGi]

i dont see a new console coming before 2013 so yes pretty much 360 and ps3 will have a 10 years life plan or even more.

[HuGi]

so why doesnt exclusives do it??

Naugthy Dog are the kings of Ps3 hardware and not even they can do a 1080p native game on it.

its way too many resources. locking 30fps 720p with the quality of Uc3 is already amazing.

Let 1080p 60fps for next gen because this gen isnt ready.

[SoapShoes]

They can do a 1080p native game, it isn't that hard... There are compromises though and doing that would mean their games would look worse. The only game that looks great at 1080p on PS3 is WipEout, imo. The rest are mostly PSN titles and GT5 isn't native but close.

[RevXM]

@HuGi
ND cant do 60 fps and 1080p. LOL What?

Its not a matter of can or can not.
Its what and why.

30 FPS and 720P is standard performance on todays consoles.
Because a lot of people have SD and or 50Hz tvs still and its also pleasing most people with HD screens.

They choose 720P becuase it requires less processing power, power that can be put elsewhere. Physics, lighting and so on. Same thing with FPS.

Maybe next gen the standard will truly be 1080P at 60FPS since full HD screens with higher refresh rates will be used and available everywhere.

[frostypants]

EXACTLY. With higher resolution comes compromises with other things. Every platform is like this.

I personally prefer 720P with great lighting and textures than 1080P with those things watered down.

[baodeus]

@revxm

"They choose 720P becuase it requires less processing power, power that can be put elsewhere. Physics, lighting and so on. Same thing with FPS."

exactly. That is why resolution isn't that important when u considering what is actually running underneath the game. The only game so far that really pushing beyond the limit of both consoles is Crysis 2. They could have remove tones of interactive objects (80% of them aren't necessary like water bottles u found in the sewer/ picture frames/trash bags/ down to even shoes for examples) from the game to improve resolution and frame rate. I don't see anything like that in UC2/KZ3/gears 2 for examples and those games ran a quite a bit smoother and still look pretty good (not as good, but pretty impressive still).

[washd123]

ha. Ha. HA. Both consoles have been maxed since 08. looking better has very little to do with the technology. Any company saying either console has more power left is flat out wrong.

[AtomicGerbil]

@washd123 (reply button wouldn't work)

It's plausible, did you not keep an eye on the evolution of games throughout the last 10 years of PS2?

How do you know a developer might not find a new way to use the Cell processor tomorrow? That's right, you don't.

[mamotte]

Should I believe Sony or the teams behind Uncharted 3 and Killzone 3? Both of them are claiming that they are taking PS3 to the MAX

[IRetrouk]

its all about optimizing the code, when they say they are using all of the available resorces or 100% they dont mean that they cant optimize the code even more.
i think both the developers and sony have said theres more in the ps3.

[Lykon]

naughty dog got to grips with the hardware before most other developers, and uncharted is one particular genre and game ... I think there is still unexplored potential with other types of games and with other developers...

[qwertyz]

ps3 and 360 are outdated look at crysis 1 surpasses any game on either platform in BOTH scale, graphics and physics and that was in 2007 I can several games that wipe the floor with consoles on pc. consoles are a generation behind besides I'll believe sonys first party studios before I believe sony themselves because last I checked its the talented programmers in their first party studios that make sh*t happen and naughty dog themselves said they are reaching the limits of ps3 and uncharted 3 doesn't look a whole lot better than uncharted 2 same can be said for killzone 3 when compared to killzone 2 the ps3 is fully tapped. unless you want to say naughty dog is lying.

[AtomicGerbil]

So what? It's a given that PC is gonna be better than a console, that argument is tired now.

It's less hassle to own a console, which is why so many do, why not let them have something to hope for. Yes, we will see improvements. How big? Who knows, depends on the talent. There is always a little something to squeeze out of a system, so, they maybe right.

Have you ever written code yourself? If you have you would know there are many different ways to get the same result, the trick is to get that result with the least amount of resources, it's a continuous search for efficiency, which takes time, something developers don't have when they have publishers breathing fire at them.

[Jamaicangmr]

No Sony not alot but more.

[tweet75]

one thing i know is i get value...with 10 year + console cycles and great games im not afraid to pay $600 for a good system. Unlike nintendo.

[Lykon]

i love this phase of a sony consoles life.... an abundance of developers who are starting to perfect coding for the hardware....aaa titles i didn't have a chance to play before for 10 or 20 quid...lots of choice and a few surprises in store...the next couple of years are gonna be good.

[thedarkvault]

As long as you're not looking for headroom in the memory or graphics processor department. I'm sure there is still CPU headroom, but devs are gonna have to get trickier and trickier with programming for that cell processor.