Support NeoGAF

[phosphor112]

And my comment was that the PS2 can do 1080i, I did not mean render a game...the PS3 struggles to RENDER a game at 1080. My comment was for those lumping the PS2 with SD only game platforms when it falls somewhere above SD.

My comments on the PS4 were carefully measured. Support for 8 1080P video streams or 8K video does not give us an idea of the GPU power in the PS4. Again, the PS2 could DO 1080i but couldn't render 1080i. Sony is providing MEDIA support in their game consoles that matches what they expect to be a consumer standard during the life of the Game console. PS2 1080i, PS3 1080P, 3-D and 4K, PS4 1080P, 4K, 8k.

As to throwing shit on the wall.....I don't like the imagery. There are 7 predictions in all and I'll post them again;

1) PS3 browser update to webkit - HTML5 - WebGL last two still coming
2) DLNA upgrade Confirmed
3) Video Editor upgrade Confirmed
4) Contact manager
5) Activity log
6) Calender

7) The XMB will be a browser desktop supporting webview windows and using webkit UI.

Where did I get those ideas, from the OLPC project where Sony got many of their ideas for the Vita.

I thought the PS2 didn't have an upscaler?... if so, how else would it do 1080i?

 

[REMEMBER CITADEL]

Some of it is due to what you say, but I think another part of it is due to people be nervous about there not being a really powerful console next gen. There are rumors that point toward the Wii U and next Xbox not having the leap in tech that people were expecting. So the PS4 is the only hope for that leap if those rumors turn out to be true.

You do realize how desperate and unreasonable it is to peg one's hopes for a monster machine on Sony, the only console maker that will end this generation in losses, a company whose last home console cost them tremendous amounts of money, mind and market share, whose latest handheld is not off to the best start and whose management is going through some drastic changes, with a dire need for cuts in many areas? I mean, hoping for things is great and all, but good luck with that.

 

[phosphor112]

You do realize how desperate and unreasonable it is to peg one's hopes for a monster machine on Sony, the only console maker that will end this generation in losses, a company whose last home console cost them tremendous amounts of money, mind and market share, whose latest handheld is not off to the best start and whose management is going through some drastic changes, with a dire need for cuts in many areas? I mean, hoping for things is great and all, but good luck with that.

Sony is putting a lot of money behind SCE because it's one of their strongest divisions. I don't see them laying up with the PS4.

 

[AgentP]

I thought the PS2 didn't have an upscaler?... if so, how else would it do 1080i?

It would software upscale and output in 1080i.

 

[H_Prestige]

You do realize how desperate and unreasonable it is to peg one's hopes for a monster machine on Sony, the only console maker that will end this generation in losses, a company whose last home console cost them tremendous amounts of money, mind and market share, whose latest handheld is not off to the best start and whose management is going through some drastic changes, with a dire need for cuts in many areas? I mean, hoping for things is great and all, but good luck with that.

I hear Sony is currently asking for donations to fund the ps4.

 

[SolidSnakex]

You do realize how desperate and unreasonable it is to peg one's hopes for a monster machine on Sony, the only console maker that will end this generation in losses, a company whose last home console cost them tremendous amounts of money, mind and market share, whose latest handheld is not off to the best start and whose management is going through some drastic changes, with a dire need for cuts in many areas? I mean, hoping for things is great and all, but good luck with that.

Why is it unseasonable? If you expect there to be a PS4 then Sony is going to need something to market it. Despite the sales of the Move, I think it's obvious that it hasn't taken off the way Kinect has. It's unlikely that they'd build a system around Move in the same way that MS may build the next Xbox around Kinect. Then you've got Nintendo that has a ridiculous amount of extremely popular first party titles and a lot of casual gamer support. So what's Sony left with? They're left with the potential of having the most powerful system which could lead them to having the best multiplatform titles. That would actually be really huge for them. It would be something that would attract the "core" gamers.

 

[behem0th x]

...erm...

http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4852

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lMYGZ5bSDU...

And the game ran at 60fps... so yeah.. it was capable of 1080i, it's just only 2 games ever used it.


http://www.playstationpro2.com/ps2faq.html

I'm 95% sure it was native rendering. There is a clear quality difference from 1080i vs 480p.
Normally I used 480p (until I got a 1080p tv that is...) but GT4 looks much better than it's other game modes.

I thought I read somewhere that the game was simply 520p, scaled to 1080i. Also, 60fps, but it is an interlaced signal... so therefore, fields=/= frames.

 

[StevieP]

Why is it unseasonable? If you expect there to be a PS4 then Sony is going to need something to market it. Despite the sales of the Move, I think it's obvious that it hasn't taken off the way Kinect has. It's unlikely that they'd build a system around Move in the same way that MS may build the next Xbox around Kinect. Then you've got Nintendo that has a ridiculous amount of extremely popular first party titles and a lot of casual gamer support. So what's Sony left with? They're left with the potential of having the most powerful system which could lead them to having the best multiplatform titles. That would actually be really huge for them. It would be something that would attract the "core" gamers.

It's the OG Xbox mentality.
(PC will generally have the best versions of multiplats, btw, for those concerned with technical specifications).

And to those who think Sony's going to put out a loss-leading box at $499 and ship it with a Dualshock 4... well, I don't know what to say to you.

 

[3rdman]

I expect a mid range part from 2013 or unreleased 2014 tech. I don't expect a new Cell derived CPU but maybe an old one for backward compatibility. And I expect 2GB. I don't think the rumor implied it would be a beast compared to the 720, only modestly better specs.

If they were smart, they'd dump Cell but this is sony but it would also mean saying goodbye to backward compatibility. It's not an issue now but it makes a great selling point at launch...MS will undoubtedly have full BC and probably with enhancements as well so leaving Cell would be difficult, IMO.

 

[iamshadowlark]

It's the OG Xbox mentality.
(PC will generally have the best versions of multiplats, btw, for those concerned with technical specifications).

And to those who think Sony's going to put out a loss-leading box at $499 and ship it with a Dualshock 4... well, I don't know what to say to you.

It'll be a $399, loss leading(although the margin will be more vita like vs PS3) system, with a DS4.

 

[SolidSnakex]

It's the OG Xbox mentality.
(PC will generally have the best versions of multiplats, btw, for those concerned with technical specifications).

And to those who think Sony's going to put out a loss-leading box at $499 and ship it with a Dualshock 4... well, I don't know what to say to you.

Why does a powerful system = $500 to some people?

 

[StevieP]

Why does a powerful system = $500 to some people?

Because powerful components cost money. The launch PS3 cost Sony something like $900, though the insanity of that figure revolves mostly around Blu Ray and Cell. If you want powerful chips, it will cost you more. Sony can't afford $300 losses per box anymore, regardless. A $400 box would be much more modest tech-wise than what some people in this thread are proposing.

It'll be a $399, loss leading(although the margin will be more vita like vs PS3) system, with a DS4.

You're probably right about that, minus the DS4 part. They're not shipping the same controller that they've been using/updating for decades now as the default. I'm willing to bet a steam game that it'll be something different this time around.

 

[iamshadowlark]

Because powerful components cost money. The launch PS3 cost Sony something like $900, though the insanity of that figure revolves mostly around Blu Ray and Cell. If you want powerful chips, it will cost you more. Sony can't afford $300 losses per box anymore, regardless.



You're probably right about that, minus the DS4 part. They're not shipping the same controller that they've been using/updating for decades now as the default. I'm willing to bet a steam game that it'll be something different this time around.

Im almost certain it'll be a DS4 or maybe another name. Either way it'll be a standard fare controller. Theres no reason to do otherwise.

 

[phosphor112]

I thought I read somewhere that the game was simply 520p, scaled to 1080i. Also, 60fps, but it is an interlaced signal... so therefore, fields=/= frames.

520 is an interesting internal resolution..especially since it was for the NTSC version.. which nothing is ever 520p.

 

[Nizz]

Im almost certain it'll be a DS4 or maybe another name. Either way it'll be a standard fare controller. Theres no reason to do otherwise.

I agree. I'm guessing the DS4 will have real triggers like the 360 controller has. I'd love the L2/R2 buttons of the DS2 back but that's probably not going to happen.

 

[SolidSnakex]

Because powerful components cost money. The launch PS3 cost Sony something like $900, though the insanity of that figure revolves mostly around Blu Ray and Cell. If you want powerful chips, it will cost you more. Sony can't afford $300 losses per box anymore, regardless. A $400 box would be much more modest tech-wise than what some people in this thread are proposing.

Doesn't the Vita show that they know how to create powerful hardware that isn't extremely expensive? I remember when the Vita was unveiled and people expected it to cost around $400 because of the tech behind it. Despite that you have some rumors saying that they're only losing a small amount per Vita sold and others that suggest that they're making a profit. They're probably going to use that same approach with the PS4.

 

[REMEMBER CITADEL]

Why is it unseasonable? If you expect there to be a PS4 then Sony is going to need something to market it. Despite the sales of the Move, I think it's obvious that it hasn't taken off the way Kinect has. It's unlikely that they'd build a system around Move in the same way that MS may build the next Xbox around Kinect. Then you've got Nintendo that has a ridiculous amount of extremely popular first party titles and a lot of casual gamer support. So what's Sony left with? They're left with the potential of having the most powerful system which could lead them to having the best multiplatform titles. That would actually be really huge for them. It would be something that would attract the "core" gamers.

Where to start... First of all, "core" gamers as you see them make up a relatively small percentage of the overall gaming population. They are in larger numbers among early adopters, that's true, but those people are more likely to buy the first next gen system that's available, and going by the rumors you seem to put so much weight behind (even though you shouldn't as they're all rather vague and contradictory), PS4 is going to be the last.

Mainstream and casual gamers, two much larger groups, don't care a lot about hardware power. You were able to see that both in this generation and the last where most third party games were usually sold on PS2, even when Xbox and GC (and PC) versions were superior. Other things, like online services and communities they foster, are much more important, especially nowadays. Decision-making people at Sony understand that. In the extremely unlikely case that they don't, their business is bound to get marginalized and ultimately perish.

As far as the main features for next gen systems go, you make it sound like going with something we already know about or hardware power are the only two possible choices. They're not and all hardware makers are going to try to differentiate themselves with some cool new twists. Kinect is not going to be the sole focus for Microsoft (Live is much more important to them anyway), hardware power is not going to be the sole focus for Sony (they're also unlikely to completely abandon Move), and hell, we don't even know the whole story about Wii U yet.

 

[KageMaru]

...erm...

http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4852

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lMYGZ5bSDU...

And the game ran at 60fps... so yeah.. it was capable of 1080i, it's just only 2 games ever used it.


http://www.playstationpro2.com/ps2faq.html

I'm 95% sure it was native rendering. There is a clear quality difference from 1080i vs 480p.
Normally I used 480p (until I got a 1080p tv that is...) but GT4 looks much better than it's other game modes.

I know by now you've come to the realization that this is all bogus, but you really shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet ;p

And my comment was that the PS2 can do 1080i, I did not mean render a game...the PS3 struggles to RENDER a game at 1080. My comment was for those lumping the PS2 with SD only game platforms when it falls somewhere above SD.

My comments on the PS4 were carefully measured. Support for 8 1080P video streams or 8K video does not give us an idea of the GPU power in the PS4. Again, the PS2 could DO 1080i but couldn't render 1080i. Sony is providing MEDIA support in their game consoles that matches what they expect to be a consumer standard during the life of the Game console. PS2 1080i, PS3 1080P, 3-D and 4K, PS4 1080P, 4K, 8k.

As to throwing shit on the wall.....I don't like the imagery. There are 8 predictions in all and I'll post them again;

1) PS3 browser update to webkit - HTML5 - WebGL (last two still coming)
2) DLNA upgrade Confirmed
3) Video Editor upgrade Confirmed
4) Contact manager
5) Activity log
6) Calender
7) New Chat programs

8) The XMB will be a browser desktop supporting webview windows and using webkit UI.

Where did I get those ideas, from the OLPC project where Sony got many of their ideas for the Vita.

My apologies since I thought you meant rendering natively at 1080i.

And again I hope you're right even though I think your comments about the Cell upgrade and ray tracing are pipe dreams. My whole shit sticking to walls comment was mostly in jest, I just don't think people should take everything you say as gospel because you were right on the browser upgrade (thankfully so).

I thought the PS2 didn't have an upscaler?... if so, how else would it do 1080i?

I suggest you look into field rendering.

If they were smart, they'd dump Cell but this is sony but it would also mean saying goodbye to backward compatibility. It's not an issue now but it makes a great selling point at launch...MS will undoubtedly have full BC and probably with enhancements as well so leaving Cell would be difficult, IMO.

I have a feeling neither will support BC, but we'll see.

One thing's for sure, if they don't support BC, I'll be FAR more hesitant to buy any digital content on their next system.

 

[Liamario]

It's kind of hard to call them unofficial. Not finalized may be the better term since neither seemed to do much to stop the amount of early info we saw from coming out. I do recall early on that both planned to have only 256MB of memory. Cell was pretty much always known. Xenon was targeted to be a 3.5Ghz 2-way SMT OoO CPU before having to settle for Cell PPEs. It's debatable about when the RSX was settled on. And Xenos' targets seemed to remain the same throughout the process.

Thanks. The reason I asked was whether there was firstly any correlation between the rumoured and actual specs of current consoles and secondly the difference between the rumours and the reality.

 

[behem0th x]

520 is an interesting internal resolution..especially since it was for the NTSC version.. which nothing is ever 520p.

actually, i meant to type 540p. and you're absolutely right about 520.

 

[AmFreak]

Xenon was targeted to be a 3.5Ghz 2-way SMT OoO CPU before having to settle for Cell PPEs. It's debatable about when the RSX was settled on. And Xenos' targets seemed to remain the same throughout the process.

Do you have a source for this? Cause it sounds like crazy bollocks (No offense to you).

 

[plainr_]

Sony if you can't do triggers properly, go back to shoulder buttons like the DS2.

Other than that, I hope they don't change the overall controller design too much. DualShock controllers are by far my favorite.

 

[StevieP]

Doesn't the Vita show that they know how to create powerful hardware that isn't extremely expensive?

It shows that Sony has learned *something* with hardware design, and has taken advantage of the explosion of mobile tech. It is using mature, established technology from 2008/2009 (GPU/CPU respectively) to create a system that is powerful without breaking the bank. If you assert that they should do the same for the PS4 (i.e. use established, mature tech to create a good spec machine that doesn't break the bank) then I would agree. But that is not what most people in this thread are looking for. jeff_rigby's posts, as an example, look at 3D stacking. That's not going to happen. And I highly doubt it's going to come with an iterative DS4 as the default controller - they know that they need differentiators in the box as well in this day and age.

Do you have a source for this? Cause it sounds like crazy bollocks (No offense to you).

Actually, BG was underselling what Xenon was supposed to be.

I have uploaded the technical doc from 2004 that came directly from Microsoft in its dev kits, if you'd like to give it a read through, here:
http://www.filedropper.com/xenonsystemarchitecture

Basically, MS was originally telling developers it was a 4GHz tri-core CPU based on Power4 (i.e. OoOe).

GPU: This is the main system controller hub containing the CPU’s Bus Interface Unit (BIU), the memory controller, a DX9/10 3D rendering core, system coherency controller and IO interface. It is broken into two main sections: the Northbridge (BIU, Memory, IO) and the 3DCore. The 3DCore is a 500MHz unified shader architecture based on the R500 and uses 10MB of embedded DRAM for the render targets and z-buffer
The choice of a DirectX compatible 3DCore should be self explanatory, and the most up to date version of the standard was chosen (DX10). However, given schedule / cost constraints, not all of the DX10 spec made it into the hardware.

CPU: The CPU is a custom 4GHz PowerPC CPU designed specifically for Xenon. It consists of 3 CPU cores running in a SMP model. Each core supports 2-way Simultaneous Multi-Threading (SMT), allowing a total of six simultaneous hardware threads. The architecture is scalable to accommodate a late binding decision on the exact number of cores depending on the final cost model. All cores are identical and have specially designed vector floating point acceleration (VMX2) and a shared 1MB L2 cache.

The CPU is a multi-core SOC arranged in an SMP fashion. All cores are identical and are optimized for vector floating point, as is common in 3D graphics applications.

Important features of the CPU:
• ISA: 64bit PowerPC, derived from Power4 architecture.
• SMP: All cores are identical and coherent with one another.
• SMT: All cores support 2 simultaneous threads.
• Vector Floating Point (VMX2, 128bit):

And so-on and so-forth.


Also of note in that document was the multiple references of their dev kits being 512mb (i.e. their main system was still targeting 256mb at the time).

Memory: The system has a unified memory architecture consisting of GDDR memory. 128MB, 256MB, 512MB and 1GB memory configurations are supported, although 256MB console with 512MB development systems are the POR. See \\xenon\specs\memory\specs\ati_spec_16mx32_8b_v11.pdf for a sample part spec

What ended up in Microsoft's hands from IBM, however, was basically the PPE from Cell x 3, which was far less than what they wanted performance-wise.

 

[jeff_rigby]

My apologies since I thought you meant rendering natively at 1080i.

And again I hope you're right even though I think your comments about the Cell upgrade and ray tracing are pipe dreams.

On PCs we are starting to see ray tracing for lighting ONLY. That's doable now and results in some amazing effects that add to the realism. The Cell SPUs can do that easily and better than most GPUs.

My whole shit sticking to walls comment was mostly in jest, I just don't think people should take everything you say as gospel because you were right on the browser upgrade (thankfully so).

Neither do I. If you have been reading the browser thread there are some "discoveries" that I use as a base for speculation.

 

[iamshadowlark]

Do you have a source for this? Cause it sounds like crazy bollocks (No offense to you).

Thats not really what happened AFAIK.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3904/processing_the_truth_an_interview_.php

 

[iamshadowlark]

It shows that Sony has learned *something* with hardware design, and has taken advantage of the explosion of mobile tech. It is using mature, established technology from 2008/2009 (GPU/CPU respectively) to create a system that is powerful without breaking the bank. If you assert that they should do the same for the PS4 (i.e. use established, mature tech to create a good spec machine that doesn't break the bank) then I would agree. But that is not what most people in this thread are looking for. jeff_rigby's posts, as an example, look at 3D stacking. That's not going to happen. And I highly doubt it's going to come with an iterative DS4 as the default controller - they know that they need differentiators in the box as well in this day and age.

Sony has said themselves that they are looking into 3d stacking. Everything I've read about it doesn't seem like its that far off from being usable in a late 2013-2014 console.

 

[KageMaru]

Do you have a source for this? Cause it sounds like crazy bollocks (No offense to you).

Nah he was pretty much on the ball.

On PCs we are starting to see ray tracing for lighting ONLY. That's doable now and results in some amazing effects that add to the realism. The Cell SPUs can do that easily and better than most GPUs.

Neither do I. If you have been reading the browser thread there are some "discoveries" that I use as a base for speculation.

Everything I've seen of ray tracing has been on relatively older games. I don't think gamers are willing to sacrifice effects and such for more accurate lighting that they wouldn't even be able to appreciate. Also regarding Cell doing it "easily" and better than most GPUs, I don't think that's the case. IIRC it took IBM researchers 3 PS3's to render ray tracing on a single car. I still believe we're some ways away from using ray tracing in today's high end games.

Edit:

Thats not really what happened AFAIK.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3904/processing_the_truth_an_interview_.php

If I understand it correctly, MS originally wanted an OoO CPU that was at least 3.5GHz, so that part is correct. The Cell PPU is what IBM offered instead.

 

[H_Prestige]

Im almost certain it'll be a DS4 or maybe another name. Either way it'll be a standard fare controller. Theres no reason to do otherwise.

It will be tablet controller just like Nintendo and MS. It will probably have a front and back touch pad like the Vita and gyroscopes out the waazoo. In fact I'm pretty sure the controller will be their main selling point for the ps4 so it will definitely not be a dual shock 4.

 

[inpHilltr8r]

I thought I read somewhere that the game was simply 520p, scaled to 1080i. Also, 60fps, but it is an interlaced signal... so therefore, fields=/= frames.

Pretty much. It's actually a 520 x 640 buffer that's refreshed at 60fps. Interlacing gives you 1080 lines, and the hardware triples each horizontal pixel to get 1920 pixels per line. It's an analogue output format, so that tripling is inherent. You might even get some interpolation for free.

You add a half pixel offset on alternate frames, so the vertical resolution really is 1080.

 

[iceatcs]

Wait, am I actually read it said Cell and blu-ray expensive because of powerful technology? lol

No way. It was expensive because of its new technology.

 

[jeff_rigby]

Sony has said themselves that they are looking into 3d stacking. Everything I've read about it doesn't seem like its that far off from being usable in a late 2013-2014 console.

Yeah, and Sony could just be trying to keep the cost of the PS4 reasonable.....3D stacking does not equal kick ass GPU performance...it can be about keeping heat down and reducing costs.

It is too soon to be arguing performance.....Sony will probably release the PS4 later and it MIGHT be more powerful or cheaper than the Next box. Who knows.....

 

[Marco1]

The vita is a sign of how they will approach PS4. They have already asked devs what they would like to see in the new hardware so I don't expect them to go with anything different to what we have now.

 

[Aizu_Itsuko]

Price is the biggest factor now. Sony needs to target $250-300 launch price, not a penny more. They also need to launch early. It will have enough power regardless, and only the super retarded nerds actually give a shit in the first place. How many times does it need to be reminded to some boneheads here that ps1 and ps2 were not powerful systems? They were both weak, piece of shit consoles. And they obliterated the competition.

While I agree that Sony should (and probably will) take into consideration manufacturing costs this time around, the bolded part is not true at all. They both were pretty cutting edge systems at the time of release given their price and more powerful systems being released one and half year later doesn't change that.

Sony can do that again, release a powerful but affordable system with good first and third party support. That's the smartest thing they could do, especially if they can capture part of the more casual market at the same time.

 

[bgassassin]

Thanks. The reason I asked was whether there was firstly any correlation between the rumoured and actual specs of current consoles and secondly the difference between the rumours and the reality.

I gotcha. This time around they seemed to be more tight-lipped about the upcoming consoles. But back when the current gen consoles were in development, things were pretty consistent since what we got were leaks instead of just rumors.

Do you have a source for this? Cause it sounds like crazy bollocks (No offense to you).

No problem at all. I got the info from a book called "The Xbox 360 Uncloaked: The Real Story Behind Microsoft's Next-Generation Video Game Console".

Here is a link to an old B3D post that mentions the specific excerpts from the book.

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=823134&postcount=34

IBM knew that it could make a derivative of the efficient PowerPC core that it had created for Sony without a huge redesign effort. It anticipated that it would be able to include a feature known as out-of-order execution. With this feature, a processor could run faster because it could take instructions and reorder them for the most efficient processing. The drawback was that it took up more space on a chip than the simpler, in-order execution of earlier processors.

Using a low-power Power PC core, IBM expected that it would create a chip that ran at a clock rate of 3.5 gigahertz and put three processing cores on a single chip. Each of the cores would also be capable of running two programs, or threads, at the same time. In terms of performance, the machine would be capable of running six times the number of threads on the original Xbox. And it would run four times faster in terms of megahertz. The cores would also be small, meaning that they wouldn’t be extremely costly.

“We made the trade-offs together,” Spillinger said. “It started with communication between two teams, and then it expanded so that they talked to any of our engineers.”

A couple of the trade-offs were big ones. During 2003, IBM realized it had to scale back. Instead of hitting 3.5 gigahertz, IBM decided that it could only target 3.2 gigahertz speeds. (Sony had the same problem; it said its Cell chips would run at 4 gigahertz, but had to settle for 3.2 gigahertz). Otherwise, the yields on its chips might be too low, driving the costs up for both IBM and Microsoft.

Another setback was that IBM had also decided that it couldn’t do out-of-order execution. This was a modern technique that enabled microprocessors to dispatch a number of tasks in parallel. A sequence of instructions was broken into parallel paths without regard to order so they could be executed quickly, and then put back into the proper sequence upon completion.

Instead, IBM had to make the cores execute with the simpler, but more primitive, in-order execution. Out-of-order consumed more space on the chip, potentially driving up the costs and raising the risks. When Microsoft’s Jeff Andrews went to Jon Thomason and told him the news, it was like a bombshell. One by one, many of the Mountain View group’s biggest technological dreams were falling by the wayside.

“You always shoot for the best you can do, and then reality kicks in,” said Nick Baker. “You go through iterations and sometimes you get nasty surprises.”

I forgot to add this, but here was one of the early diagrams for the Xbox 360.

So 360 was planned to be better than what it ended up being.

Basically, MS was originally telling developers it was a 4GHz tri-core CPU based on Power4 (i.e. OoOe).

Learned something new. I guess they continually found themselves having to dial back expectations.

 

[Jonm1010]

While I agree that Sony should (and probably will) take into consideration manufacturing costs this time around, the bolded part is not true at all. They both were pretty cutting edge systems at the time of release given their price and more powerful systems being released one and half year later doesn't change that.

Sony can do that again, release a powerful but affordable system with good first and third party support. That's the smartest thing they could do, especially if they can capture part of the more casual market at the same time.

Yeah I'm not sure how old that guy is but the PS2 was actually on par with the top tier gaming PC's and had features that those lacked near its release.

PS2's technological superiority was also a reason why the Dreamcast came to be seen as a stop gap between generations and died the way it did.

The reason Nintendo and Microsoft had superior hardware was simply because they released well over a year later(PS2 released in March of 2000, gamecube september of 2001, xbox november 2001).