PlayStation Orbis/4?

[MacRumorUser]

Originally Posted by Dagless

They have never said, neither publicly or internally.

I think it was more the case that the press media that took it as meaning what it did initially. Nothing directly from Sony, but the interpretation the press gave when it launched was that it would be longer before the next next gen....


As I said last few years it's clear Sony meant the hardware will be supported for 10 years...






Next gen..
Personally I'll be happy to see the next gen sooner at this stage. I'm also hoping that with Wii U we will finally see GameCube HD upgrades to games like WindWaker as much as the HD collections are on PS3 n 360 now.

[Antares]

Originally Posted by Dagless

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.

Sony said it, themselves, in a news conference. I remember reading about it, on IGN, sometime in 2006ish. I'm only going off of what Sony said. There was backlash at the time because people were arguing about not wanting to wait 10 years for the PS3's successor and that Sony would never stick to that plan because Microsoft wouldn't wait...and the PS3 would be outdated in comparison and they would have to release sooner...the ten year plan would never happen.

I'm going to try and track this down at some point....to see if I'm right or wrong. That's the only way I'll know. But it really feels like a waste of time on something so pointless. There's really more important things to spend my time on.

[MacRumorUser]

Can I slap you two upside the head!!

Kaz Hirai: PS3's Lifespan is 10 Years
So, that makes it roughly $60 a year?

By Mark Whiting, 08/29/2006
Share it:



Sony Computer Entertainment America President and CEO Kaz "Riiiiiiidge Racer" Hirai sat down for a comfy chat with CNet the other day, and, as per the typical Sony interview these days, produced some ambitious commentary.
On the subject of the PS3's $600 price tag, the Sony president had the following bit of consumer advice to impart:

"I think that we are offering a very good value for the consumers. We look at our products having a 10-year life cycle, which we've proven with the PlayStation. Therefore, the PlayStation 3 is going to be a console that's going to be with you again for 10 years. We're not going to ask the consumers to suddenly buy another PlayStation console in five years time, and basically have their investment go by the wayside. So for all those reasons, I think at $599 we're offering a very good value to the consumers."
No PS4 for 10 years, hmmm? Can I get that in writing, Kaz? In fact, how about Nvidia's CEO Jen-Hsun Huangand and that Kutaragi character do the same thing, too.

Objectively, that $600 investment doesn't seem quite as big a boot to the head if you think of it farmed out over the course of a decade -- heck, that's only a little bit more than Xbox Live! 'Course, you still need a game or two.

Kaz went on to restate Sony's official position as being a company dedicated to maintaing a "10-year life cycle" for all its game platforms -- which naturally begs two questions: a) When was the last time that you bought a new PS1 game, and b) Why is the PS3 launching after only 6 years of active service from the PS2?

Personally, I prefer the more succinct rationale that followed shortly thereafter:

"...my message is that once you become a family in the PlayStation family of products, you become a family member. We make sure that we take care of you."
Yeah, I've heard that one before -- in The Godfather.

So you can see in 2006 Kaz states it will have a 10 year lifespan.

The press take this as meaning no ps4 for 10 years.

So clearly his words were misinterpreted and hence the confusion....

Remember back in 2006 when Sony announced the Playstation 3? The one thing that they consistenly stressed was that this machine was going to last them ten years and that they were committed to that goal. Fast forward about six years later and people are already talking about a PS4 as if they are certain it will be announced at this years E3 Expo. It's a known fact that Sony doesn't always keep it's word but with the PS3 doing as well it has ever done in it's lifespan you can be certain there isn't going to be a PS4 any time soon.

Only a few years ago Sony was able to break even with the PS3's manufacturing costs and began making money on each console sold. Ever since the PS3 has provided a hefty source of revenue for the company and announcing a new system would be a completely insane move on their part. New consoles cost billions of dollars and Sony simply cannot risk announcing a new system this soon. If anything I think it won't be until 2014 that we get sign of this new system and even later when we actually can get our hands on it.

If there is one thing that Sony is certain about is it's ten year life cycle for the PS3 and now that we're in it's sixth year, we have quite a bit of time until that cycle is over.

Rest assured the PS4 will be announced, just not as soon as everyones hoping it will be.

Sometimes the obvious needs an explanation, because sadly, there are a lot of people who lack common sense. Lately, there’s been some confusion about Sony’s goal of giving the PS3 a “10 year life cycle”. This is for everyone saying the PS4 won’t come out until 2015-16. Here’s what would happen if the PS3 was Sony’s “only” console for a decade.

The Cell is powerful—but Sony couldn’t stay competitive with it for 10 years. In a couple of years, we’ll have smartphones that are stronger than it. Everything in this world has limits (except numbers), and the Cell will hit one in the near future. Look at the gameplay demos for Uncharted 3; it’s not a major graphical leap like it was from the first to the second game. Sure developers could squeeze more juice out of it, but they won’t because the law of diminishing returns would be in place, it wouldn’t be worth it. They’d just pour money into other more powerful consoles.

For some reason, core gamers love to bash the Wii—it’s like a sport. They call it a “last gen” console, and a waste of space, etc. I bring this up because if the PS3 lasted 10 years this is the place it would be in. It would be weak in comparison to the other consoles on the market. Sure it would still sell, but it wouldn’t get a lot respect, à la the Wii.



If the PS3 was still Sony’s “only” console for a few years after the Next Xbox is in stores, even hardcore Sony fans would break down and “switch teams” once they see all the amazing next-gen games the competition is getting. I’m sure we all know someone who hated the original Xbox, but picked up the Xbox 360 because it was first to market, and the hype got to them. Loyalty when it comes to consoles is a joke, gamers want to experience the best, and when they can’t, they’ll seek other alternatives.

Sony is a business, and they can’t survive without innovation, no company can. It’s absurd to believe that a tech giant would rely on one static product to carry a whole division for a decade. Doing that would be like playing Russian roulette with six bullets—that’s pure suicide.

Hopefully these misunderstandings come to an end, and honestly most of the people online arguing about consoles, and using the 10 year thing to get their point across won’t even benefit from it. If you’re that engrossed into gaming (yes, I’m talking to you), there’s a good chance you’re going to upgrade as soon as possible. The way I see it, the 10 year support is more for people that’s going to pick the PS3 up on a budget. Parents buying one for their kids at Christmas, or someone who can’t afford to dump tons of cash into gaming.

This has been an exercise in the obvious, I’m aware (first sentence). If you already knew all these things, this piece wasn’t for you, so please don’t waste your time complaining. Okay, let’s pretend that everyone misunderstanding is correct, could the PS3 compete for a decade if it was Sony’s one and only?

[oahqnam8045]

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.

High technology => of course high price. It's hard and expensive to run by technology.
Are there any informations about ps4 yet ?

[Miharu]

Saying the PS3 will have a 10-year lifespan is correct even if they release a PS4 next year. Look at PS2, that was released in 2000 and survived well into 2010. I know our store still sold plenty of PS2 units in christmas 2010, parents just want a cheap console for their kids with a huge library. And since everyone of their kids' friends have one as well, it's easy to get access to plenty of games.

So what Kaz meant was that the support for PS3 will last for at least 10 years. Games won't stop being released on PS3 simply because a PS4 got out (of course it will eventually but not immediately).

[boy-better-know]

The truth is that the market decides, when the time is right, Sony will drop the 4. Speaking of GTA though, hadn't they better hurry up with GTA5, if we are looking at new consoles I am sure an announcement may take the wind out of R*'s promotion, then again maybe not.

In some other good (and at the same tie sad) news. Sony has announced that they are winding down on areas of the company that are not so strong, such as their TV division, and concentrating on their more successful areas, one of them being games. This made me feel better about the game industry as a whole.
However 10,000 people have lost their jobs.
Source - http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Pr...56E/index.html
Scroll down to where it says 'Game'.

----------

...I think we all understand what Sony means by a ten year plan here. I think the built in Blu-Ray player will keep sales steady over the coming years.
The only thing that makes me sad is that we won't be seeing unit sales of 100 million like we did with PS1 and PS2, I understand the market is different now, but more people should have bought PS3's.
I remember back when I was at school in the early 2000's, and it seemed that everyone I knew had a PS2, literally all my mates had one, everyone who I spoke to had one, it was great. We spent all our time talking about games and going to each other houses to play PS2.
Completely different story with the PS3, people just didn't want to pick them up. All the online gaming I was doing was with people I had met online until about 2010. I am disappointed in mankind!

[MacRumorUser]

The strange thing is Sony are in a really bad position. The entertainment division is now getting a lot of pressure to take the burden of the TV hardware division which they as you say are winding down. The problem is this is at a time when console sales and game industry sales are actually in a decline. This always happens towards the end of one cycle and the limbo before the next.

The problem is that without a new console being announced, we know nothing in E3 will be about the PS4, shareholders and the markets are putting all their Sony eggs in a basket that too is in a limbo state and one that isn't as successful as they want it to be. Vita sales continue to disappoint in its home territory.

So what will Sony do in 18 months before we see a PS4? Profits warnings? More studio closures, more job lossess?

Sales of PS3 are not going to increase from here on out. They have reached their peak and will likely see moderate decline for the next few years.

Will thie financial troubles at Sony force / make them bring forward the PS4 release. (it would explain the off the shelf component rumours / developer leaks).

So baring this in mind... Will we see a well timed PS4 announcement just prior to the Wii U release - with promise of a spring 2013 PS4 release ?

I suspect with the financial troubles, continued decline of this generation , but pressure from the markets on the entertainment division, that is exactly what will happen.

[boy-better-know]

Analysts predict doom and gloom for next Xbox and PS4/Orbis...
http://uk.games.ign.com/articles/122/1223836p1.html

I agree that the Wii U will sell poorly though. The money in the console business is with the mass market, the Wii catered to that very well. I think many will have trouble telling if the Wii U is a different machine to the Wii. That has to damage sales.

[gkarris]

I'm hearing that MS and Sony's Next-Gen consoles will have the games locked to that console...

Enjoy...

[boy-better-know]

Ok, interesting read on next gen if you have 5 mins.
http://uk.ign.com/articles/2012/06/2...oming-too-late

Basically claims that the fruits of this generation are just coming into fruition for Sony and M.soft. I guess it makes sense as to why they are holding off. And to be honest I cannot image either making any announcement about next gen what so ever until a certain GTA has had its last hurrah with the current gen. It only makes sense.
So are you guys craving a new generation, or are you quite content with what is coming over the next year for ps3/360?

[MacRumorUser]

Originally Posted by boy-better-know

So are you guys craving a new generation, or are you quite content with what is coming over the next year for ps3/360?

Whilst we may be content with the type of games coming, it's the 720p or sub 720p resolution, 30fps with plenty of drops, lots of jaggies, mixed with plenty of screen tear which make us cave the next gen.

Imagine how those coming games would look at 1920x1080, locked frame rate, 4-8xAA, no screen tear (v-synced)..... A damn site better than current console hardware can achieve, and not much hassle to a sub $500 pc these days.

[Taustin Powers]

Honestly, I'm not craving a new generation of consoles at this point. With games looking/playing like the Uncharteds, I am quite happy with the technical level we have right now. The only thing that sometimes bugs me about the PS3 is load times. An upgrade to a faster-reading bluray drive would be nice to cut down on that. Everything else mentioned (slightly higher resolution, more stable framerates etc.) seem like rather incremental improvements to me, not like the leaps we had between previous generations.

The past consoles I have bought right when they launched. If a PS4 launched tomorrow, I would likely wait until at least next year to pick it up. Just too content with what we have right now, and there's still killer games in the making.

[Dagless]

I would absolutely love updated current gen consoles before the leap to next-gen. To play these new games in a reasonable resolution that doesn't look like arse would be wonderful!

[Taustin Powers]

Originally Posted by Dagless

I would absolutely love updated current gen consoles before the leap to next-gen. To play these new games in a reasonable resolution that doesn't look like arse would be wonderful!

Not gonna happen though, and I am actually glad, to be honest. Differently spec'd versions of the same system would inevitably lead to fragmentation.

It's why I have always preferred console gaming over PC gaming. When you have a console, the specs are fixed and it's the developers' responsibility to taylor their games to run smoothly on your platform. With PC gaming it's the other way around - the developers define the specs with their newest games, and it's up to you to adapt your system. I'm lazy, and I like to go and buy games without worrying about compatibility, minimum/recommended/optimal specs, performance, etc.

It's a matter of personal preference though. I can totally see how other people prefer updating their system every year to always get the most up-to-date performance. I am just happy that both options are out there and we can choose.

[Dagless]

Originally Posted by Taustin Powers

Not gonna happen though, and I am actually glad, to be honest. Differently spec'd versions of the same system would inevitably lead to fragmentation.

It's why I have always preferred console gaming over PC gaming. When you have a console, the specs are fixed and it's the developers' responsibility to taylor their games to run smoothly on your platform. With PC gaming it's the other way around - the developers define the specs with their newest games, and it's up to you to adapt your system. I'm lazy, and I like to go and buy games without worrying about compatibility, minimum/recommended/optimal specs, performance, etc.

It's a matter of personal preference though. I can totally see how other people prefer updating their system every year to always get the most up-to-date performance. I am just happy that both options are out there and we can choose.

Not so much like that, but a PSOne style final system release at or near the consoles end. Games would be made for one, but scalable to the other (in terms of just adding AA, increasing resolution, decreasing load times etc).

[boy-better-know]

On the subject of fragmentation and updating current gen consoles. I was reading a fanciful article featuring a next gen console wish list. One of the wishes was for upgradable systems, much like we get with PC's. I cannot for one second see it happening, but it is a though. Would anyone here be happy with that? I obviously see a lot of problems with it but it would allow the next gen to run a lot longer.

[Taustin Powers]

Originally Posted by boy-better-know

On the subject of fragmentation and updating current gen consoles. I was reading a fanciful article featuring a next gen console wish list. One of the wishes was for upgradable systems, much like we get with PC's. I cannot for one second see it happening, but it is a though. Would anyone here be happy with that? I obviously see a lot of problems with it but it would allow the next gen to run a lot longer.

I would absolutely hate that, for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Upgradable systems already exist for everyone who wants them: PC's! No need for consoles to go that route!

[AcesHigh87]

Personally I'm happy with what my PS3 can deliver right now however I would be significantly more pleased with it if the developers would actually make games for it rather than making ****** looking 360 games and then porting them over to the PS3. This means even at this late stage in it's life cycle very few games are using the PS3's capable power resulting in games that look and perform poor and slow.

The PS3 exclusives, on the other hand, like Uncharted perform and look brilliant because they are made for the hardware inside the console. They are designed specifically to work well on the cell processor and do a great job of it. If more developers would develop games for the cell I would easily be happy with my PS3 for the next 3-5 years.

With that said, obviously, I doubt 360 fans would be as willing. Yes, their console came earlier and cheaper but at the cost of cheaper hardware that is failing at a higher rate. Games on the 360 simply can't perform to the level the PS3 ones can. The issue that arises from this is that the new XBox will need to come sooner. Normally I wouldn't complain except I know this means that Sony will rush their console out in order to avoid losing sales like they did in this generation. Thus we get a new PS rushed out of the gate when they old one was still more than adequate. Microsoft pushing for cheaper components is, IMO, hurting the console game industry more than anything else.

Now, I'm sure many would deem me a fanboy for statements like this and so be it but it's just what I've observed.

[MacRumorUser]

Originally Posted by AcesHigh87

Personally... Insert tirade, fanboy style rant here...

Now, I'm sure many would deem me a fanboy for statements like this and so be it but it's just what I've observed.

your observations are extremely flawed. There are as many great looking 360 exclusives as much as PS3, this forum section is really not the place for turning threads into silly fan boy piss fights, especially 6 years or more into the friggin consoles lifespans.

Seriously if you want to make posts which are as prejudiced, il informed and full of nonsense, and expect an audience of willing monkeys to clap and agree, I'm afraid you are in the wrong forum here. Take it to IGN or elswhere.

Nearly all the regulars here have more sense I'm afraid....

[AcesHigh87]

Originally Posted by MacRumorUser

your observations are extremely flawed. There are as many great looking 360 exclusives as much as PS3, this forum section is really not the place for turning threads into silly fan boy piss fights, especially 6 years or more into the friggin consoles lifespans.

Seriously if you want to make posts which are as prejudiced, il informed and full of nonsense, and expect an audience of willing monkeys to clap and agree, I'm afraid you are in the wrong forum here. Take it to IGN or elswhere.

Nearly all the regulars here have more sense I'm afraid....

So be it, I was expecting that kind of response. Maybe I've simply been playing the wrong games, I don't know. I'm just stating that, from what I've personally seen, most games look worse when they've been ported from the 360 and most exclusives on the PS3 look significantly better.

Again, I'm not trying to claim this is for all games and the 360 does have it's positive points but speaking purely graphic and power wise I'm fine with my PS3 because I find that exclusives still look amazing.

[boy-better-know]

Originally Posted by Dagless

I would absolutely love updated current gen consoles before the leap to next-gen. To play these new games in a reasonable resolution that doesn't look like arse would be wonderful!

http://kotaku.com/5925976/this-sure-...-playstation-3
Sure you've already seen this, would be interesting to see if they would upgrade components. e.g., to help run games in 1080p.

[-SD-]

But the PS3 already spits out a 1080p picture. If the games themselves aren't developed in 1080p (which 99% aren't) then there's really not much you can do.

[MacRumorUser]

Originally Posted by -SD-

But the PS3 already spits out a 1080p picture. If the games themselves aren't developed in 1080p (which 99% aren't) then there's really not much you can do.

Well the problem is that the memory (the biggest limiting factor in these consoles) and cpu just aren't enough to drive a full AAA game with all the fancy effects and high res textures at 1080p without the game being rendered at 5fps - which of course is not ideal.

So they limit them to 720p and often WAY below 720p (closer to 480p in a lot of cases) and add post processing effects to hide the defecit, and even then we rarely get solid 30 or 60fps in those games.

So yes it would be nice to have a console that can output 1080p at 30 or 60fps LOCKED with V-Sync so we don't get hideous screen tear too.

[boy-better-know]

Originally Posted by -SD-

But the PS3 already spits out a 1080p picture. If the games themselves aren't developed in 1080p (which 99% aren't) then there's really not much you can do.

Originally Posted by MacRumorUser

Well the problem is that the memory (the biggest limiting factor in these consoles) and cpu just aren't enough to drive a full AAA game with all the fancy effects and high res textures at 1080p without the game being rendered at 5fps - which of course is not ideal.

So they limit them to 720p and often WAY below 720p (closer to 480p in a lot of cases) and add post processing effects to hide the defecit, and even then we rarely get solid 30 or 60fps in those games.

So yes it would be nice to have a console that can output 1080p at 30 or 60fps LOCKED with V-Sync so we don't get hideous screen tear too.

Yeah exactly, future games could be developed to take advantage of the new hardware swell as being compatible for the older consoles.

[Antares]

Originally Posted by boy-better-know

On the subject of fragmentation and updating current gen consoles. I was reading a fanciful article featuring a next gen console wish list. One of the wishes was for upgradable systems, much like we get with PC's. I cannot for one second see it happening, but it is a though. Would anyone here be happy with that? I obviously see a lot of problems with it but it would allow the next gen to run a lot longer.

We had an upgradable console (minimally upgradable, but still)...the Nintendo 64. The majority of people did not buy that memory expansion pack. I did at it was cool. However, anytime a developer has to develop for multiple system spefications, you open up the potential for problems. The great thing about consoles is that you have consistency. A game played on the PS3 is the same no matter which PS3 you arer playing. This is a topic for a different thread, though....