PlayStation Orbis/4?

[boy-better-know]

From an apparently reliable source, the next gen Playstation is in the hands of developers.
Seems to me like the first PS4 rumour that we should take note of. Coming 2013 holiday season, which sounds about right. I hope this is true, really exciting news, although the used games market may be killed off for good here.
http://uk.ps3.ign.com/articles/122/1221819p1.html

[Varigon]

I think both PS4 and Xbox 3 will be released in 2013, at least I hope so. It's time for a more powerful generation which can run 1080p with at least 30fps.

My primary console is the Xbox 360 though.

[MacRumorUser]

I can't see the next Microsoft and Sony consoles launching so close together, so maybe spring 2013 for Microsoft? But then you'd think they'd be up-talking about it in E3, which they have already stated it won't be there....

The anti-pre owned thing about the next gen is a balls if true. I don't by pre-owned games, but I do trade in my finished ones. This would force me to buy less games.


If the two consoles launch within mere months of each other, I'll probably only pick up one - whereas with a 8-12 month time frame, I'd buy both.

[boy-better-know]

Originally Posted by MacRumorUser

I can't see the next Microsoft and Sony consoles launching so close together, so maybe spring 2013 for Microsoft? But then you'd think they'd be up-talking about it in E3, which they have already stated it won't be there....

The anti-pre owned thing about the next gen is a balls if true. I don't by pre-owned games, but I do trade in my finished ones. This would force me to buy less games.


If the two consoles launch within mere months of each other, I'll probably only pick up one - whereas with a 8-12 month time frame, I'd buy both.

I don't think that Sony will want to launch an age after Microsoft. It seems the lateness of the PS3 meant that Sony was playing catch up for the most part of this generation, despite being the better machine.

They really need to get a good foothold on the next gen purely to take software sales from Microsoft rather than letting them have free reign like they did last time. At the moment it is like the cycle races at the Olympics where the riders are going slow, waiting for the other one to start racing, and as soon as one goes, the other does too.

As for losing the pre owned and trade in market, fact is, it will go at some point during the transition from physical to digital. To be perfectly honest, I was half expecting the PS4/ORBIS and the next box to drop the OOD. I still think it is highly possible in honesty. Only reason Sony may not is to keep pushing Blu-Ray

[rezenclowd3]

I am just fearful that the media will be locked to an account or console, therefore killing off used games sales. I prefer to buy used, but even the current $10 for online use is silly.

[MacRumorUser]

My fear with digital download is pricing. Recent titles sell for €69.99 on PSN store here. The same Game with a disc, box, manual retails for €44.99 in stores. It just doesn't make sense why anyone would pay €25 more for essentially less, added that I have to download 11GB or so.

Now if the pricing was more reflective of this, and was say €34.99 on PSN I would have no issues losing my box, disc, time to download and ability to trade in later.

Sadly I predict we will be fleeced. Without competition which essentially digital distribution does away with, pricing can remain ridiculously high.

As soon as gaming goes that route (if it does) I'll be exiting it.

Take for example Assasins Creed Revelations now on PSN for €59.99 this week.
Or from amazon.co.uk for £20.97 (€25)....

How can anyone justify €35 more?

[LethalWolfe]

Originally Posted by MacRumorUser

My fear with digital download is pricing. Recent titles sell for €69.99 on PSN store here.

We have to start worrying more about ISP bandwidth caps as well. I mean, whenever everything we do is funneled in and out via the Internet a 250gig cap (or whatever) isn't very much.


Lethal

[Taustin Powers]

The high prices on PSN have never made sense to me. They are saving on production and distribution costs (which cannot be insignificant amounts...how else would retailers make their money??), we are receiving less of a product (manual, packaging, disc), so they are charging MORE money?? Makes no sense for the consumer whatsoever...

I imagine it could be some sort of agreement with the retailers to not sell their games below a certain price point. I know it works that way in certain other industries (clothes, gadgets, etc.). Buying directly from the manufacturer is never cheaper than buying from a third party distributor. If the manufacturer got into a price war with his retailers (where they could easily beat them!), the retailers would simply stop carrying their products. And as of now, retail is where they get most of their business, so the manufacturers depend on them.

Whenever Sony's distribution model goes fully digital and cuts out the retailers, that's when we are in trouble. They already explored this avenue once with the PSP Go, thankfully the consumers didn't go for it at all. If this had been a success, you can bet the PS4 would bring us a world of exclusively digital distribution with insane prices!

[MacRumorUser]

Originally Posted by LethalWolfe

We have to start worrying more about ISP bandwidth caps as well. I mean, whenever everything we do is funneled in and out via the Internet a 250gig cap (or whatever) isn't very much.


Lethal

Very true. With the advent of all our digital products and apps that routinely churn out updates forcing a redownload of a 1gb file for some games/apps (iPhones/iPads/consoles/handhelds) etc. , on top of Netflix and such, data caps are pretty much hammered.

I'm lucky that my ISP who has a 40gb cap, doesn't actually enforce it. I'm routinely 2 or 3 times over it.

But for those whose data caps are imposed, eek eek eek....

Originally Posted by Taustin Powers

The high prices on PSN have never made sense to me. They are saving on production and distribution costs (which cannot be insignificant amounts...how else would retailers make their money??), we are receiving less of a product (manual, packaging, disc), so they are charging MORE money?? Makes no sense for the consumer whatsoever...

I imagine it could be some sort of agreement with the retailers to not sell their games below a certain price point. I know it works that way in certain other industries (clothes, gadgets, etc.). Buying directly from the manufacturer is never cheaper than buying from a third party distributor. If the manufacturer got into a price war with his retailers (where they could easily beat them!), the retailers would simply stop carrying their products. And as of now, retail is where they get most of their business, so the manufacturers depend on them.

Whenever Sony's distribution model goes fully digital and cuts out the retailers, that's when we are in trouble. They already explored this avenue once with the PSP Go, thankfully the consumers didn't go for it at all. If this had been a success, you can bet the PS4 would bring us a world of exclusively digital distribution with insane prices!

My thoughts entirely.

No problem paying for games, just don't bite the hand that feeds you. Sony's pricing structure on PSN and same for Microsoft is just way out of kilter.

Especially given the economic times were in.

[Dagless]

Originally Posted by LethalWolfe

We have to start worrying more about ISP bandwidth caps as well. I mean, whenever everything we do is funneled in and out via the Internet a 250gig cap (or whatever) isn't very much.


Lethal

They're more or less doing away with bandwidth caps in the UK. Or at least offering a true unlimited option (on BT it's only a little bit more). But that's the thing - I've got a great connection for digital distribution (40mbps, no bandwidth cap) but I still buy console games boxed because, like MRU said, it's the price of the games.

I wouldn't mind digital distribution if;
- Broadband speeds were faster and no bandwidth caps for anyone
- Storage media was cheaper/used off the shelf components (SD cards, Sata drives)
- Content was cheaper

Rayman Origins was £50 on PSN when the boxed version was £30 at launch. The PSN price was slashed to 30, but so has the boxed version to 15.

And if you think Sony have been plotting to fix this whole second-hand game "issue", then so have Microsoft. Maybe even Nintendo, although I can't imagine the Wii U having such a strict lock out system. And, if it does exist, you know it's down to pressure from publishers. Those miscreants.

[Miharu]

I'm afraid the pricing of games is not going down since having a more powerful console means much higher production costs. There's still some juice left in the current consoles, I for one am not looking forward to having to buy another 400-600€ console next year.

I'm always wondering about those retail games in PSN, how do they incorporate online passes and other DLC, for example in the retail version of Assassin's Creed:Revelations you get a free download voucher for the original AC. Are these included if you buy through PSN?

[Dagless]

Originally Posted by Miharu

I'm afraid the pricing of games is not going down since having a more powerful console means much higher production costs. There's still some juice left in the current consoles, I for one am not looking forward to having to buy another 400-600€ console next year.

Not always! The tools to develop games are getting better too. Those big games of last gen can now be made by smaller teams, and tiny indie teams can put out games with the same quality+scope of big budget games.

There are plenty of SDK's and middleware solutions to get big things made by small teams on a budget.

[boy-better-know]

With regard to PSN pricing, I agree, it is ridiculous on the PS3, FIFA is about £55 or something stupid like that. But, on the VITA, where digital distribution is so important that each and every game is available over PSN, there prices are much more reflective of the content. Maybe some of you don't agree with me but I think Sony has hit the nail on the head for pricing of the Vita games. I belief that the ORBIS will go down the same route.
However, I do agree that it is good to have competition between retail outlets to get the price down for the consumer, but it is just the way we are going I guess.

----------

Also, I remember seeing a video of square Enix's 'Luminous' next gen game engine, and honestly couldn't tell the difference between the real time rendering and actual life. Can't wait to see some more footage of any next gen stuff, if anyone has any could you post it here?

[LethalWolfe]

Originally Posted by Taustin Powers

The high prices on PSN have never made sense to me. They are saving on production and distribution costs (which cannot be insignificant amounts...how else would retailers make their money??), we are receiving less of a product (manual, packaging, disc), so they are charging MORE money?? Makes no sense for the consumer whatsoever...

There was an episode of PachAttack where Pachter fielded a question about XBL and PSN prices vs retailers and a big reason why retailers will slash prices is to get old physical inventory out of their store even if it's at a loss. But for digital downloads there's no physical inventory that has to be cleared out so there's not that 'natural' (in the businesses sense) incentive to slash prices as a game gets older and its sales slow.


Lethal

[Dagless]

Originally Posted by boy-better-know

With regard to PSN pricing, I agree, it is ridiculous on the PS3, FIFA is about £55 or something stupid like that. But, on the VITA, where digital distribution is so important that each and every game is available over PSN, there prices are much more reflective of the content. Maybe some of you don't agree with me but I think Sony has hit the nail on the head for pricing of the Vita games. I belief that the ORBIS will go down the same route.
However, I do agree that it is good to have competition between retail outlets to get the price down for the consumer, but it is just the way we are going I guess.[COLOR="#808080"]

Some of the prices are great - it's the games that are physical+download that are expensive. Download only titles are cheap (like Motorstorm RC, Stardust). I recall Unchartered being very expensive for what it is, and £35 for UMvC? Nah!

They could really improve on those. They said "downloads will be cheaper than the store versions", and they're very not.

[boy-better-know]

Update: PS4 rumoured to be using the same/similar chip to the next Xbox, unsurprisingly, it seems like both consoles will be hot rivals in the next gen too.

http://uk.ign.com/articles/2012/04/0...ocessing-specs

...not sure what is going on with that horrific Apple TV look-a-like mock up on that article. Yuck!

[Antares]

I would rather the PS4 and XBox 720 come out in 2014. The PS3 was supposed to be a ten year system. I need two more years worth of play to catch-up with games before I start dealing with next-gen PS.

I'm ready for the Wii-U, though.

I hope the PS4 will not be as expensive at launch as the PS3. I waited until I could get it for $100 off the launch price...and got those 5 free blu-rays to boot.

I want my physical media, though...which I don't doubt the PS4 will have. Sony would not drop blu-ray from their system. As long as blu-ray exists, I bet Sony will include it. I'd also expect it in the PS5, as well, barring any unexpected consumer move away from blu-ray...which is not foreseeable in the next decade.

[Mr.C]

Originally Posted by Antares

I would rather the PS4 and XBox 720 come out in 2014. The PS3 was supposed to be a ten year system. I need two more years worth of play to catch-up with games before I start dealing with next-gen PS.

I'm ready for the Wii-U, though.

I hope the PS4 will not be as expensive at launch as the PS3. I waited until I could get it for $100 off the launch price...and got those 5 free blu-rays to boot.

I want my physical media, though...which I don't doubt the PS4 will have. Sony would not drop blu-ray from their system. As long as blu-ray exists, I bet Sony will include it. I'd also expect it in the PS5, as well, barring any unexpected consumer move away from blu-ray...which is not foreseeable in the next decade.

There seems to be a common misconception about what Sony means by a ten year life span. It doesn't mean it will be ten years before they release their next console. A typical life span before the next console is launched is 5-6 years. After that the previous console will continue to be supported for a few more years usually as an entry level or starter console for those can't afford don't want to spend the money in the newest console.

[Antares]

Originally Posted by Mr.C

There seems to be a common misconception about what Sony means by a ten year life span. It doesn't mean it will be ten years before they release their next console. A typical life span before the next console is launched is 5-6 years. After that the previous console will continue to be supported for a few more years usually as an entry level or starter console for those can't afford don't want to spend the money in the newest console.

Sort of but no. Sony (originally) did not intend to release a new system until the PS3 was closer to the 10 year point of its lifespan. Meaning, 2015/2016 for their next system (PS4). That was part of the point of the PS3. They wanted to make it powerful enough that instead of releasing a new system in 5-6 years, they could push it out closer to 10 years. That was the original intent. Competition and market reality may make them do otherwise, obviously. So, the original goal will not happen.

[Dagless]

Originally Posted by Antares

Sort of but no. Sony (originally) did not intend to release a new system until the PS3 was closer to the 10 year point of its lifespan. Meaning, 2015/2016 for their next system (PS4). That was part of the point of the PS3. They wanted to make it powerful enough that instead of releasing a new system in 5-6 years, they could push it out closer to 10 years. That was the original intent. Competition and market reality may make them do otherwise, obviously. So, the original goal will not happen.

No they didn't. The PS2 still has some minor support and that's a 12 year old system, but it had a successor 6 years after launch. "10 year support"= manufacture this console for 10 years, still license out dev kits, still offer hardware support.

Next gen is always launched when it's needed. We've hit the limits of current gen tech (although players of GTA4 might argue the limit was hit years ago).

[Antares]

Originally Posted by Dagless

No they didn't. The PS2 still has some minor support and that's a 12 year old system, but it had a successor 6 years after launch. "10 year support"= manufacture this console for 10 years, still license out dev kits, still offer hardware support.

Next gen is always launched when it's needed. We've hit the limits of current gen tech (although players of GTA4 might argue the limit was hit years ago).

Sure they did. The PS3 successor was not originally intended to be released until 10 years from the PS3 release. Its not about 10 year support. The PS3 was intended to defy the normal release timeframe of consoles....to push it out to a projected 10 years.

[Mr.C]

Originally Posted by Antares

Sort of but no. Sony (originally) did not intend to release a new system until the PS3 was closer to the 10 year point of its lifespan. Meaning, 2015/2016 for their next system (PS4). That was part of the point of the PS3. They wanted to make it powerful enough that instead of releasing a new system in 5-6 years, they could push it out closer to 10 years. That was the original intent. Competition and market reality may make them do otherwise, obviously. So, the original goal will not happen.

Originally Posted by Antares

Sure they did. The PS3 successor was not originally intended to be released until 10 years from the PS3 release. Its not about 10 year support. The PS3 was intended to defy the normal release timeframe of consoles....to push it out to a projected 10 years.

Rubbish. You obviously have no clue as to how Sony operate and what their console release plans are. You obviously have never heard or listened to what they have said in their official statements since the original Playstation was released. Sony have always maintained that each of their consoles would be around for 10 years but that they would release their successor well before that. That has always been their console hardware strategy and hasn't changed.

[Antares]

Originally Posted by Mr.C

Rubbish. You obviously have no clue as to how Sony operate and what their console release plans are. You obviously have never heard or listened to what they have said in their official statements since the original Playstation was released. Sony have always maintained that each of their consoles would be around for 10 years but that they would release their successor well before that. That has always been their console hardware strategy and hasn't changed.

Nope. What I said comes from Sony. I didn't make this up. The PS3 was supposed to be different from the normal release cycle of consoles. Unlike the PS2, PS1, Xbox and all Nintendo systems. Its not about support. 10 years was the original plan of when they were intending to release a successor. This was officially stated by Sony. I'm 100% right on this and will apologize if proven wrong. I'll try to find all the original information on this within the next week since you don't believe me.

[MacRumorUser]

I think you're all right. Sony and the media/press certainly gave the impression early on that with the PS3 we would be seeing the console longer before a successor, but over the last 2-3 years that's perception has changed and the position became more of a 'it's supported for 10 years'...

You're all correct, and this fence is incredibly high so once you've stopped bickering I'll get down from it ;-)

[Dagless]

Originally Posted by Antares

Nope. What I said comes from Sony. I didn't make this up.

They have never said, neither publicly or internally. I don't know who you got your information from but they are very much making it up.

New consoles are released around the same time. No manufacturer has ever set a shelf life for a console, even internally. They only plan on how long to extend hardware support, licensing and developer support. The only difference about this gen has been how slow graphics have taken to improve. A 2005 console can run Crysis 2 and look good doing it.

Source: My work.