• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Could this be the first real PS4 info? (pc.watch.impress.co.jp)

tabsina

Member
Graf Nudu said:
God, I hate the Wii. I mean why does everyone have to include waggle within their consoles, now? Why not just concentrate on a solid hardware and good games? F*** all those casual gamers playing Wii Fit. Nintendo single handedly killed gaming. :(
I want my the late 1990s back with a strong Sony and a Nintendo you could laugh at. :(


Yes, I know that Sony and Microsoft did many mistakes, too.

2894650021_9e457efd42.jpg
 

Zoc

Member
My two cents:

A faster Cell/new GPU PS4 would cost Sony relatively little, beyond the salaries of the engineers that already work for it.

PS3 sales are slowing down, not speeding up. All things being equal, the PS3 is looking at having a smallish install base, even after three more years of sales.

So, from Sony's point of view, the pros of tweaking the PS3 and launching it as the PS4 in 2011 are a chance to pull the rug out from MS on the Xbox 3, make back some of the money it blew on the PS3, and get another chance at mass success. The cons are possibly alienating that part of the user base (of around 25-35 million), that thought the console was released too quickly (although 5 years is actually standard) and that the console was underpowered (although it might not be anyway).
 
Sol.. said:
Two Cells in that bitch, or since it's PS4....4 cells in that bitch. A cell can do graphics card work no problem. Fuck a FPGA could do graphics card work. Just load cells in that mother fucker and don't stop. I bet they would come out with a serious graphical leap in a short amount of time too.
Devs were pissed off at the PS3... how happy do you think they'd be about a console with no GPU? :D
 
If sony indicate the PS4 will have Cell architecture it could encourage devs to put more money into their Cell engines knowing they will work in the next gen as well.

Also from an accounting point of view they could argue that some of the R&D costs for the PS3 could be carried over to the PS4 reducing their bill for this generation.
 

Chris_C

Member
I thought it was generally accepted that the PS4 would re-use the cell architecture in some form. Is it the 2X number that's getting you folks in a tizzy? Or the Wii-tized quote? Please, too much time and energy is being wasted here, when we could be scouting for LBP keys.
 

antiloop

Member
Wii setting the new standard! :)

Edit: Cell in PS3 is pretty much 1st gen hardware. IBM has already announced improvements that could be made cheap. So it's pretty logical that Sony would use it again instead of developing a new CPU.
 

JimiNutz

Banned
Fuck you Nintendo. I always hated Mario and his annoying accent, Zelda is overrated, and the only good games you used to publish were Rare games anyway. Fuck your piece of shit Wii-thanks for destroying gaming with your Granny friendly shit. Grannies belong in the kitchen anyway, and then when they get too old you stick 'em in a mental home, they have no place playing videogames! Fucking Nintendo, I HATE YOU!!!!

Jokes aside Sony are stupid. When they saw Wii gaining momentum they should have rushed out a copy cat remote with improvements, made it even better than the Wii mote by having it interact with Eye Toy, and bundled that shit with the PS2 and re-launched it as PSWii or whatever the fuck they want to call it.
They should have set aside a couple of shitty studios to work on budget PS2 games that make use of this new motion controller, made a bunch more Eye Toy games and priced it all cheaper than the Wii.
That way they could have battled Nintendo's Wii with their new and improved motion controller PS2 and kept the hardcore audience happy with the PS3. Then when it comes time to launch PS4 you bring out a new motion controller for the PS3, a bunch more casual games, and you have the PS3 (which would be priced about $100 by this point) become the new console for the casuals while you once again keep the hardcore happy with the PS4.
 

ghst

thanks for the laugh
so it'll be roughly as powerful as the pc i'm playing on today. good to know.

the wii's success didn't come from it being TWICE AS POWERFUL as the gamecube.

my guess is that they've r&d'd a similar but not identical architecture that would already be cheaper than the manufacturing costs of the ps3, and want to get it out as soon as the market allows.
 

Ghost

Chili Con Carnage!
Can't see this happening. Sony aren't in a position to be throwing money down the drain cutting console life cycles short like Microsoft were with Xbox.
 

Fersis

It is illegal to Tag Fish in Tag Fishing Sanctuaries by law 38.36 of the GAF Wildlife Act
I want to play my PS3... is too soon to start thinking in a PS4 (At least from a customer perspective)
 

Zoc

Member
Ghost said:
Can't see this happening. Sony aren't in a position to be throwing money down the drain cutting console life cycles short like Microsoft were with Xbox.

Sony cutting the PS3's life short is called cutting its losses. If they followed the plan under discussion, they'd be giving themselves a second chance at mainstream success, without even spending that much money on it.
 
I think it's good news. Sony have been slapped upside the head this generation by having over-complicated hardware that is too expensive for the mass market. If they're learning they can't get away with it then that's a good thing.
 

DarkJC

Member
As long as the switch of memory architecture doesn't affect backwards compatibility, then I honestly don't mind this move. If PS3 wont be 100% compatible with PS4 (like Gamecube is on the Wii) then I consider it shitty.
 

dalyr95

Member
Well CELL is a cutting edge design and I doubt will be obsolete in 2011. I image more PPE and a load more SPEs which will make it blazing fast, eDRAM for framebuffer and an nVida slightly custom high end GPU, scaler, unified RAM, HDD, and most importantly software integration built into the hardware, so key functions such as voice chat etc are OS based and not impact game performance

It'll be powerful but I know Sony don't want to sink billions into R&D development on PS4 after the amount they spent on PS3
 

1-D_FTW

Member
Makes perfect sense. The market leader this gen is clearly Nintendo. It's questionable whether Nintendo's next gen system will even be as powerful as 360/PS3. So why should Sony spend billions on R&D when they've already got superior hardware for the next gen fight? That's not what's gonna win or lose the war. Kind of sucks, but that's where we are.

And for those saying they're done with consoles, good luck. PC exclusives have to cater to the game buying public (action, shooter, racing games get pirated to hell and back). If you really think there's gonna be any Crysis style games in those genre's next gen you're fooling yourself. We're lucky there's still enough of us saps that pay for our PC games that we get console ports anymore. Yeah, you'll be able to play your games at high resolution/AA/AF/60fps, but that's been easily done for many years now.
 

Syringe

Member
There is a lot of talk about Sony having said that Playstation 3 will be around for ten years. That's something they said long ago before they knew what they know now. And just for the record: Nintendo said exactly the same thing about Gamecube. And didn't Microsoft say something like that about Xbox back in the day (I think it was Bill Gates, even).

It is a sad developement, but I can absolutely see this happen and Microsoft might also try to do the same thing again. They've already started with Xbox 360. Why build expensive hardware when you won't make any more money out of it?

And we know that consoles with bad sales - be it Saturn, Xbox or Gamecube - has been cancelled/retired prematurely. Why is it completely impossible that it should be appliable for Sony when Microsoft, Nintendo and Sega all have done this before?
 

gofreak

GAF's Bob Woodward
I can't believe people still misunderstand the "10 year lifecycle" mantra.

I don't know if that will actually be true of PS3, but when Sony says that they don't mean another system won't be released for 10 years.
 

RobertM

Member
This is exactly what I saw coming; more memory, high clocked CPU and maybe a better GPU. By all means that is all that's needed, and I don't see developers making huge leaps next generation considering production cost. Having Cell in the new system means that you don't have to relearn the programing aspects and less bitching about difficult development. What Sony really has to do is get their development tools up to speed, and beyond that everything else will fall into place by itself.
 

Diablos

Member
Guys, we don't even know if this is true.

Deadmeat is a troll of legends, I wouldn't believe every single thing he says :p
 
legend166 said:
Increasing the power at the same rate isn't sustainable. Sony is doing a smart thing here.

...and not just because of hardware prices. How many developers could afford to make a game with graphics a generational leap above PS3/360? How many copies would such a game have to sell to break even, let alone make a profit?
 
If Sony releases PS4 early to get a jump on the competition they risk running into the same problems Sega did.

It makes sense for them for them to use an upgraded Cell, they keep BC and minimize costs. All they need is a cutting edge Nvidia GPU and more RAM. We're also in an era of diminishing returns anyway, Wii has shown consumers do not care about graphics.

If this is true, I think their main goal is to reassure developers that Cell will be around for the next generation so that devs should be afraid to optimize for it.
 

Tiberius

Member
Diablos said:
Guys, we don't even know if this is true.

Deadmeat is a troll of legends, I wouldn't believe every single thing he says :p
deadmeat don't speak japanese it's probably some fud based on babelfish translation ....
 

1-D_FTW

Member
Diablos said:
Guys, we don't even know if this is true.

Deadmeat is a troll of legends, I wouldn't believe every single thing he says :p

Probably. But it's still hard to believe this isn't the course Sony is gonna take. Why would they possibly take any other route?

And am I the only one who's suspicious of the guy quoted: Goto? Either that's made up, or the coolest name ever given to a geek. Talk about preordained destiny.
 

jett

D-Member
gofreak said:
I can't believe people still misunderstand the "10 year lifecycle" mantra.

I don't know if that will actually be true of PS3, but when Sony says that they don't mean another system won't be released for 10 years.

Whatever man, once PS4 comes, PS3 will get gamecub'd/dreamcast'd/xbox'd.
 

spwolf

Member
mr_bishiuk said:
If sony indicate the PS4 will have Cell architecture it could encourage devs to put more money into their Cell engines knowing they will work in the next gen as well.

Also from an accounting point of view they could argue that some of the R&D costs for the PS3 could be carried over to the PS4 reducing their bill for this generation.

of course, it will certainly have improved Cell CPU's... I would take that for granted. Anything else would be crazy...

And even if Sony is not investing in Cell, IBM and Toshiba are...
 

camineet

Banned
Syringe said:
And just for the record: Nintendo said exactly the same thing about Gamecube. And didn't Microsoft say something like that about Xbox back in the day (I think it was Bill Gates, even).


Nope.

While Miyamoto said something like that he would like to see GameCube optical discs used for 8 years, Nintendo never said it would have a ten year life.

And Bill Gates never said that original Xbox would be around for 10 years. In fact, in early 2000 when Xbox was announced, Microsoft said that they wouldn't change hardware until 4 years after it came out, that's exactly what happened, too.
 

gofreak

GAF's Bob Woodward
jett said:
Whatever man, once PS4 comes, PS3 will get gamecub'd/dreamcast'd/xbox'd.


Quite probably/possibly, I'm just saying that not releasing a system for 10 years isn't what's meant by that. It's perplexing coming into these conversations and seeing people going "lol, what about 10 years?" Whether PS3 has a 10 year cycle or not, there'll be a new system out in 2011ish, give or take a year or so.
 

Sol..

I am Wayne Brady.
Psychotext said:
Devs were pissed off at the PS3... how happy do you think they'd be about a console with no GPU? :D

man fuck em.

Multiplat games (all systems) are the suck now a days anyway. I hope they make it extra hard so EA will have to put more than 20 people on it's games.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
If this is Sony's plan, they better hope the country's economic woes have turned around or this is going to be a short ride.
 

Sean

Banned
I don't think this would necessarily be a bad thing. I'd like to see both PS4 and the next Xbox go this route.

Keep the processor and stuff similar so that devs are up to speed and won't have to learn all new architecture etc. It would help maintain 100% backward compatibility too (hopefully for the DLC games as well). The upgrade these consoles mostly need IMO is more RAM, having 2GB or so would be great. Seems that's always the bottleneck.
 

camineet

Banned
^ with much more RAM (4 GB), memory bandwidth and far stronger graphics processors, XB3 & PS4 with only modest CPU upgrades could still seem like a large leap forward. Especially if 1080p and even 720p resolutions are no longer a huge strain on resources as they are with the current HD consoles.
 

camineet

Banned
http://www.trustedreviews.com/gaming/news/2008/09/30/PlayStation-4-Using-PS3-Cell-Processor/p1


PlayStation 4 Using PS3 Cell Processor


We already know that the PS3's Cell processor is going 45nm in 2009, but if Impress' information is correct, then the chip is set to be around much longer than that. Apparently Sony's next generation PS4 is also set to sport the Cell processor when it arrives.



Supposedly the decision is borne out of a desire to help save development and production costs. While it sounds like bad news for those hoping Sony would be keeping competitive with Microsoft, which pretty much certainly has an Xbox 360 successor in the works it isn't necessarily so. The Cell is arguably still a much more advanced CPU than that in the Xbox, so if Sony can give its graphics (the technically weakest area of the PS3) a decent overhaul it should still be able to remain technically competitive with Microsoft.
 
LaneDS said:
That would be quite interesting, and probably wise. No more $600 consoles at launch for Sony in the distant future, I'm sure.

Assuming it's true, I wonder if Microsoft will be following suit and offering a similar jump in power for their next Xbox. Which I wouldn't mind, personally. If the Wii can still impress me from time to time, I see nothing wrong with the HD consoles only going for a minor power upgrade in the next generation.

if its only going to be a minor upgrade then dont make me waste another $400 on another system. Dont waste the developers time switching consoles. Either make a true next gen system or dont waste everyones time and money. And being impressed by the Wii??? wow


camineet said:
^ with much more RAM (4 GB), memory bandwidth and far stronger graphics processors, XB3 & PS4 with only modest CPU upgrades could still seem like a large leap forward. Especially if 1080p and even 720p resolutions are no longer a huge strain on resources as they are with the current HD consoles.

good point... please dont skimp on the ram Sony
 

camineet

Banned
kaching said:
Deliberately, gofreak

True, and they've been doing it for 2+ years, maybe 3+

Sony isn't in the position to impose a ten-year lifecycle for PS3, without a PS4, given PS3's current overall worldwide market status. The consumer kinda dictates (to some degree) roughly when a new system comes out.
 
soco said:
if all the major players go wii-style, with consoles only slightly more powerful than what exists today, will this be the beginning of a PC resurgence? hardcore gamers move back to the PC ;)

When PC games leap console games by the same degree that they used to back in the 16-bit and earlier days, color me a PC man once again.
 

camineet

Banned
ScrabbleBanshee said:
When PC games leap console games by the same degree that they used to back in the 16-bit and earlier days, color me a PC man once again.


New consoles also used to leap beyond PC games (16-bit gen, first 3D gen, PS2-gen) for awhile when those consoles were new. It was a back and forth.

But incredibly with this current gen, consoles didn't measure upto highend PCs in graphics, even though 360/PS3 came with powerful CPUs.
 

legend166

Member
Father_Brain said:
...and not just because of hardware prices. How many developers could afford to make a game with graphics a generational leap above PS3/360? How many copies would such a game have to sell to break even, let alone make a profit?

That was really my point.

The fact that so many people here are completely obsessed with graphics to a point where you'll actually stop playing consoles if there is not a great leap, technology wise, is ridiculous. I'd like to think that most of you are overreacting, and when the next round of consoles come out and have great games made by the same developers making your games now, everyone will see the light and stop acting like idiots. But I get the feeling some of you are actually that shallow.

And the comparisons to the Wii are utterly moronic. I can see what people don't like the graphics of the Wii. It's SD, which doesn't look that great on HD sets. Fair enough. It doesn't bother me at all, but I can see it bothering some people. But if you're so much of a graphic whore that you won't be able to play PS3+ graphics, which will most likely run at 1080p, you need to gtfo.

It's simply not sustainable to continually make these massive leaps in technology every 6-7 years. It's not cost effective in the slightest. Budgets are growing at a rate much larger than the industry itself. We're hitting the level of dimishing returns in terms of the general public actually caring about the difference.

This makes me too annoyed, so I'll stop now.
 

Johann

Member
soco said:
if all the major players go wii-style, with consoles only slightly more powerful than what exists today, will this be the beginning of a PC resurgence? hardcore gamers move back to the PC ;)

It isn't so much about power as it is about convenience and user-interface. A lot of people don't want to deal with the hassle associated with PC games. The best selling PC Games tend to be playable on a wide range of machines and have an idiot-proof interface, such as World of Warcraft and the Sims 2.

Anyway, there is no way Microsoft and Sony can make even a comparable leap to the next generation (unless the generation is 25 years from now) without sustaining astronomical losses. The only question is whether they will attempt motion-controls or even attempt to go further.
 

camineet

Banned
Basicly all the big mainstream western sites have picked up on this, it's more than just some crappy rumor.
pc.watch.impress is no rumor mill. Not that they are the final word either, they do have credibility.

CNET's turn:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10054292-1.html

Fully Equipped: Sony considering existing cell processor for PS4?
Posted by David Carnoy


Ah, the challenges of being a game-console manufacturer. Blogger Sean Hollister at GameCyte says that Japanese tech news site PC Watch is reporting that in a potential cost-savings move Sony is considering using a tweaked version of PS3's current Cell processor in the upcoming PS4--which isn't due out until at least 2010.

Unfortunately, I don't read Japanese, so I can't translate the article for you, but here's what GameCyte has to say:

"In a long technical analysis following the report, PC Watch voices the opinion that the PS4's performance would not increase significantly from that of the PS3 if this is true. While Moore's Law and the historical rate at which Sony has shrunk processors size would suggest that the Cell processor could reach as many as 32 cores, PC Watch expects that the cost of redesigning the Cell's layout -- which has apparently remained the same as it has shrunk from 90nm to 65nm, and from 65nm to 45nm -- would be prohibitive enough that Sony will stick with around 10 cores for the PS4."

PC Watch hasn't cited any particular source in its article, but apparently Sony's been asking some developers what they think of the idea. Hollister goes on to note that, "They [PC Watch] speculate that while Sony would like to distance themselves from the Cell in the long run, at present they might do well to make use of their existing investment and expand the technical capabilities of the PS3 only moderately -- a la the hardware transition from GameCube to Wii-- in order to constrain further expenditure."

Personally, I think the Wii's graphics suck--and most Wii games suck, too--but Nintendo hasn't exactly been hurt by any of that (though, I do think the mediocre graphics will seem overly retro sooner than Nintendo thinks). That said, the PS3's graphics are obviously starting from a much higher baseline than the GameCube's, and developers are just starting to get the hang of developing for the thing. So, it does make some sense for Sony to stand pat with with the current cell processor and simply try to get the cost of the machine down to the point where it can move a ton of consoles and not lose money on each one. I'd guess that will be somewhere in the range of $250.

The basic problem for Sony is that ideally it wouldn't put out a PS4 until 2012 or even 2013. By that time it could recoup--or at least start to recoup--its initial investment on the PS3. But a little company called Microsoft will undoubtedly push forward with an XBox 720--or whatever the 360's successor will be called--in 2010. And it will probably push the graphics envelope.

I'd like to see Sony just stick with the PS3 until 2012 and come out with a model that had a modified design (read: flat top) that would fit better in my equipment rack. This would be similar to what it did with the PS2; Sony could call it the PS3 Turbo Slim or something like that. Have a couple of models, one that cracks the $200 barrier, and let Microsoft do what it's gotta do. Then come out with something a year or two after Microsoft does--but make sure it's actually superior (Sony's initially claims that the PS3's graphics would best the XBox 360's simply haven't been true).

Oh, and, Sony, for those of us with universal remotes, please put an infrared port in whatever new machine you build.

Anybody else have any bright ideas for how the company should proceed with its Playstation franchise? Thoughts on what the PS4 should be--or not be? And when would you like to see it arrive? Feel free to comment.
 

kevm3

Member
It would be disastrous for Sony to release in 2011. The PS3 still has the feeling of being 'new'. How will Sony release an expensive PS4 if they haven't been able to get PS3 to a reasonable price yet? In 2011, PS3 probably will still be 299, so what will they sell PS4 at, 499 again? It's simply not affordable for Sony to release a new system in 2011. Also, Sony has too much invested in PS3 infrastructure to tell gamers to move on. Home isn't out and established yet. Sony wants to get its video service more popular. Sony has tons of games in the pipeline. Slim PS3 isn't out yet. Why would Sony rush a PS4 to the market when PS3 is still so early in its lifecycle? It would be disastrous. What they SHOULD do is focus on making PS3 more affordable than anything. It has the games, but it's a tad bit out of the price range for most consumers.
 
Top Bottom