Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
PlayStation (Games) Sony Upgrades Games

Sony Won't Invest As Heavily In PlayStation 4 353

Posted by timothy from the ungrateful-wretches dept.
donniebaseball23 writes "Sony CFO Masaru Kato told investors this week that the company won't be looking to put the same kind of massive R&D into PS4 as they did with PS3. PS3's costs were astronomical because of Blu-ray and the Cell chip, but Sony's bottom line can't take another similar hit. Analysts are speculating that this will leave the door open for competitors like Microsoft. 'PS4's hardware could be less impressive than the PS3 at its launch. I think Microsoft will really be able to put the screws to Sony in the next console war,' Panoptic analyst Asif Khan commented to IndustryGamers."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sony Won't Invest As Heavily In PlayStation 4 More

Sony Won't Invest As Heavily In PlayStation 4

Comments Filter:
  • That's assuming that mobile phones don't become more powerful than consoles.

    • That's assuming that mobile phones don't become more powerful than consoles.

      Why would anyone ever dream of developing a console that is weaker than a mobile phone? It has a better power source, better cooling possibilities, fewer space constraints, and fewer wireless communication requirements.

      • Why would anyone ever dream of developing a console that is weaker than a mobile phone?

        Ever heard of Zeebo?

      • Why would anyone ever dream of developing a console that is weaker than a mobile phone? It has a better power source, better cooling possibilities, fewer space constraints, and fewer wireless communication requirements.

        Look into the future. No, not the next generation of consoles, but I imagine 10-15 years from now.

        Did I think my desktop would be replaced by a notebook even though they had been around by a decade or so back then? Hell, no. Just not powerful enough. Nowhere close. The small business I h

    • Re:Yeah, right. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by donaldm ( 919619 ) on Friday May 27, 2011 @09:49PM (#36270308)

      That's assuming that mobile phones don't become more powerful than consoles.

      Not likely. Even assuming that is a possibility the only machines that would be under threat would be the handhelds and even this can be debated. The main problems with any portable device are it's screen size and it's controls, so when comparing a handheld against a console or PC with much, much larger screen size and extensive control's then there is no contest.

      Compare say a mobile smartphone against handhelds such as the Nintendo and Sony offerings, again there is not that much of a contest since the handhelds have dedicated buttons (soft or hard) that are not on the screen which in itself is IMHO a pain since the screen eventually gets marked. This is not to say mobiles cannot be a gaming platform, they can, but their games are no way as sophisticated as those on a handheld or even a console or PC. Of course if you like games such as "Angry Birds" then a mobile smart phone is fine. I know you can get adventure games for the mobile smart phone but IMHO the controls sux. I have a HTC Desire HD and my wife has an iPhone 4 and I have yet to see a game for those machines that can compete with console, handheld.or even PC games.

      But I hear people say, it may possibly plug your smartphone into a HD TV via (wired or wireless) and possibly add peripheral devices such as keyboard and mouse. Great, assuming this is done your mobile smartphone is now a console but you still won't be able the play more sophisticated games when the phone is disconnected from it's peripherals or HD screen unless the laws of physics suddenly allow you to put a 40" or bigger HDTV in your pocket. So in summing up, mobile smartphones, handhelds, consoles and PC's all offer different levels of gaming sophistication and to compare mobile games against console or PC games is just pointless.

      • Re:Yeah, right. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by shutdown -p now ( 807394 ) on Friday May 27, 2011 @11:28PM (#36270760) Journal

        I don't think phones would replace consoles, either. But aside from that, which OS will the consoles run 5 years in the future.

        Some food for thought: Android 3.1 supports Xbox 360 and Wii controllers (among other things). It's up to the apps to make use of that, of course... but the support alone makes me think that Google looks at more form factors than just phone and tablet.

  • What if next gen they release another whimsical wellaccepted Nintendoish system alongside a run of the mill plays COD ports system? Seems like a way to lock everything up. Pure speculation obviously.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by artor3 ( 1344997 )

      Making two different consoles for different markets would require more R&D effort, with little real benefit. The Xbox-Kinect model is almost certainly better -- a console that appeals to one market, with an addon that appeals to the other.

      If Sony splits their development team, with one half competing head-on with Nintendo, and the other going up against MS, both will lose, and Sony will go the way of Sega.

      • Sony Playstation maybe, not Sony proper, only antitrust suit would likely bring that, if ever. Though I don't know why Sony doesn't just buy Nintendo.

  • PS4's hardware could be less impressive than the PS3 at its launch

    I hope they do better on everything else, then... Not any particular X fanboy (I have all 3 current-gen consoles and all three are sitting idle for some time now), but we're... what? Almost five years into it now?... and I'm still unimpressed. There are still only exactly two exclusives in all that time that I've thought were worth playing (and the later of the two completely screwed with the formula that made the series so awesome IMNSHO).

    Combined with the active hostility Sony treats its customers to sin

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by MogNuts ( 97512 )

      I think you're just in the camp that I'm in now. I find a small few series good and like to play the occasional totally different type of game, but other than that, we're kinda bored with video games. We loved them at one time, were addicted to them, but now we're kinda done. We just haven't realized it yet.

      I knew it was done when I played Mass Effect for the first time, was blown away, then played actual combat following cutscenes a second time for 15 minutes and said "Eh, I'm bored."

      • I think "jaded" might be a better word, at least in my case. Even the series I once loved, I'm disappointed with the latest offerings of, usually because they change things up in order to incorporate the latest wizz-bang features, without thinking about how it effects the game.

        Ratchet & Clank: Crack in Time (the two real R&C games are the two PS3 games I was referring to), traded the expansive levels and huge arsenals for a crummy "open space" layout, fewer weapons, and a shorter game, not to mentio

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by artor3 ( 1344997 )

      Combined with the active hostility Sony treats its customers to since it came out, you'd think the PS4 would come with hookers and blackjack just to get people to bite.

      Don't worry, I'm sure the new Grand Theft Auto will be a launch title.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mlts ( 1038732 ) *

      Realistically, when the PS4 comes out, people who buy it will have completely forgotten about GeoHot and the PSN breaches. They will see some cool game (perhaps another Madden release, or another FPS), buy the console, and because they spent the cash for the console, will buy the console's games.

      The public has a short memory, unless the press digs it up for them.

    • If you don't like it, don't play it.

      MAG, Resistance series, R&C series, Uncharted series, GT5, and several others all very much impressed me and kept my attention a long time. None of them would've happened on the other consoles, and they're fun games. If you're not into those, then so be it. Its not Sony's fault you have different preferences, but I'm more than pleased with my PS3's capacities.

      PS the PS4 won't need to re-invent blu-ray, because its already here, so there's a major R&D cut right

  • There's still plenty of life in the PS3. Hell, I'm only aware of one game that actually taxes the PS3; everything else seems to run just fine. What Sony needs to invest in at the moment is quality games. The fact that it took Polyphony Digital so long to release GT5 is pathetic.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by MogNuts ( 97512 )

      There are a ton of quality games. I can't even keep up anymore. There are just too many. If you can't find any, turn in your gamer card. It's like the golden age of gaming right now. I have about 50 games that I still have to get to--about 15 on the PS3.

      But no, they do not run games fine. Play BF BC2 on the PS3 and then on the PC at max settings with 8X MSAA (or even 4X) on your monitor's *native* resolution. It's quite breathtaking actually. You'll go back to your PS3 and think the games all look like mud

      • It's like the golden age of gaming right now.

        Clearly, you weren't around for even the last generation, when we actually had some variety.

    • Ha. Sorry that's just plain ridiculous. A high PC would have out visually outpreformed a PS3 when it was released. The difference is today on a nice rig vs a PS3 is like a a PS1 vs Atari 2600.

      Consoles are the lowest common denominator, and they reduce the progress of video games because devs develop games that can run well on old slow tech even when options many times their superior are available.

      http://www.pcauthority.com.au/News/170605,nvidias-fermi-so-much-potential-so-little-software-support.aspx [pcauthority.com.au]

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        and they reduce the progress of video games

        No, they don't. Maybe they reduce the progress of techno-wank, but some of the best and most innovative games of this generation have been on the Wii, DS and PSP.

      • Re:Why would they invest heavily now? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Doctor_Jest ( 688315 ) on Friday May 27, 2011 @09:58PM (#36270364)

        The consoles make it more like gaming was in the early days. Tweak the shit out of what you have, because you can't just make them buy a new machine to play your "super game". Consider the C-64... its lifespan showed that developers could make some seriously awesome game if they got to know the architecture.

        What PC gaming did is make it easy for companies to write something that took more horsepower, and because of the architecture of PCs, developers could just require more this or more that. (believe me, it wasn't a conscious decision to make the architecture open... IBM was just in a rush.)

        I like the idea that game companies work on an architecture and squeeze it dry. Why should we go back to the model that allow developers to be lazy and code for the "latest and greatest" because they can't be bothered to get into the architecture. One of the primary reasons I don't game on the PC anymore is the upgrade loop I can't get out of. Now that my computers are not for gaming, I get MANY more years of life out of them.

        Only LAZY developers make inferior games.... great games come from great programmers, not from great hardware.

        • Only LAZY developers make inferior games.... great games come from great programmers, not from great hardware.

          I completely agree with you. Someone like John Carmack comes to mind. That being said, I'd rather give a great programmer great hardware. The people who are really interested in this type of work would not become lazy, that is their passion. In the big picture when it comes to video games, I'm not fretting about about video quality on either of my ps3 or x360. I just want great game play, but that seems to be a harder challenge than graphics. After playing Two Worlds, I was ready to break out my copy

      • Ha. Sorry that's just plain ridiculous. A high PC would have out visually outpreformed

        No, ironically *this* is just plain ridiculous, were you "high" when you wrote this? ;-)

        The difference is today on a nice rig vs a PS3 is like a a PS1 vs Atari 2600.

        Sloppily-written English aside, this is the *real* part that's "just plain ridiculous." I very, *very* much doubt it's anything like that big a difference, regardless of how much better the PC is. It would have to offer borderline photo-realistic, fully-immersive VR-style 3D for this to be the case and even a non-games expert like me knows that there's nothing out there that's that good and won't be for a long time yet.

    • My $400 computer from a couple years ago runs games better than my PS3. Granted with good games you get sucked in enough to not notice the comparatively low res graphics and problems with aliasing, but they are definitely there. I added a new video card a month back and the difference is pretty unreal between playing similar games on both machines.

  • a big comeback for Sega.. Atari? I hope they bring back Pong.. still the best game ever made

  • Bad for GL development? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by elashish14 ( 1302231 ) <`profcalc4' `at' `gmail.com'> on Friday May 27, 2011 @08:45PM (#36269880)

    All consoles makers use OpenGL - except Microsoft of course. If Microsoft takes greater advantage in the console arena, it'll mean less developer mindshare on open standards in place of MS's proprietary engines. Fewer GL developers on consoles could translate to fewer GL developers for desktops as well - which is one of the main barriers to companies writing games for Linux and other non-MS platforms.

    I guess anyone could give their take on which company is less evil, but it would seem to me that the ramifications of MS dominating in the console arena could be a pretty bad turn for all other gaming platforms. Sure Nintendo is still around but their scope is somewhat different from the other two.

  • I bet on Sony last time (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I own a PS3. I bet on the PS3 with real money. I'm no fan of microsoft (ask anyone, anyone at all, ask everyone), and I won't buy microsoft consoles (go ahead, put screws to my fingernails, is that all ya got?), but I am not cheerful with Sony either. Rootkits, removing otheros, lawsuits against people who try to restore what they bought and paid for (when I buy an NVIDIA video card, NVIDIA does NOT get anal over what I do with the video card, when I buy an ASUS motherboard, ASUS does *NOT* get anal over

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Daetrin ( 576516 )
      I'm in almost the exact same boat as you. I've got a PS3 and a Wii. I don't own an XBox of any kind and hope that i never will. I'm very happy about Nintendo's new console (supposedly) being more powerful than the PS3 and 360. If Nintendo manages to attract enough 3rd party developers such that it's the only console i need to buy for the next generation and a half, i will be very happy. However if i have to choose between the PS4 and the XBox 720 (or whatever) then i'll go with the Sony console. I consider

  • Sony admits to a massive strategic blunder? Nintendo retreats from their "casual=king" position?

    Did Microsoft just "win" this generation?

    • Nintendo retreats from their "casual=king" position?

      Did they? That might be the best news I've heard all day. I haven't seen a decent Wii game since MP3...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by donaldm ( 919619 )

      Sony admits to a massive strategic blunder? Nintendo retreats from their "casual=king" position?

      Did Microsoft just "win" this generation?

      No one has won this generation. It's not over yet.

  • I'm still finding new ways to die in Nethack!

    --
    BMO

  • Same architecture, better process? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by B.Stolk ( 132572 ) on Friday May 27, 2011 @08:54PM (#36269940) Homepage

    Why not reuse the cell design: use the exact same chip, but manufacture it with current lithography technology, smaller structures, higher clockrate, more SPUs. It may do the trcik, and there is no new learning curve for devs. I have programmed SPUs, and they can do wonders if used correctly.

  • Not "less powerful", but "less investment" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ihavnoid ( 749312 ) on Friday May 27, 2011 @08:57PM (#36269966)

    Sony didn't say that they are going to produce a less powerful design, but a design which costs less, in terms of investment.
    Although the outcome may be a not-so-powerful console, the other possibility is something with less "custom" solutions.

    Such as:
      - Off-the-shelf CPUs/GPUs, or custom ASICs using 3rd-party licensed CPU/GPU designs (instead of designing one from scratch)
      - Off-the-shelf DDR(1/2/3/4/5/whatever) SDRAM (instead of using something from Rambus)
      - Blu-ray, instead of a new kind of optical disk design (or, even eliminate the physical medium altogether in favor of online purchases)

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by MogNuts ( 97512 )

      Thank you! I felt like I was the only one with all these comments who didn't see the obvious. They're just going to use basic off-the-shelf stuff. Nothing custom like the cell or anything crazy.

      Though no one here has noticed the huge implications. For the past few years, it was apparent that consoles are taking over along with the "consolization" of games. But this is huge. This just nailed in the route that console makers are moving to just a normal PC, albeit locked down. I never saw this coming. Whoa, ju

      • My opinion is, it's a pity, because novel architectures are becoming increasingly rare. Sony took a long shot in trying to replace the GPU with relatively more general-purpose SPUs. It failed, and they ended up falling back to a normal GPU for the PS3. But that doesn't mean the PS4 will be less impressive than the PS3 was at launch, it means the PS4 will be less impressive than the PS3 would have been, had all those R&D yen succeeded in developing a revolutionary architecture.

        Does that mean the PC

        • Maybe nvidia could come up with a really fast quad-core tegra design, with a higher end gpu (for 1080p output).. that would be cool...

      • Whoa, just blew my mind. The PC won.

        Or, put it the other way : for the last ten years, every PC manufacturer moved to just a normal gaming console, albeit capable of running any generic operating system, and being capable of running generic software quite well. Actually, most modern PCs got all those "custom circuits" (GPUs, sound processing DSPs, vector instructions, etc.) which previously only existed inside those custom chips inside the consoles.

        What I thought was not just something of 'generic'ness, but that Sony (and IBM) took a far too

    • Also, perhaps Sony's "R&D" costs wouldn't be so high, if they weren't in the habit of paying off an entire industry in order to get their format accepted instead of their competitors [slashdot.org]. Maybe they should try not doing that as a cost cutting measure.

    • Off-the-shelf CPUs/GPUs, or custom ASICs using 3rd-party licensed CPU/GPU designs (instead of designing one from scratch)

      The last two generations of consoles have used off-the-shelf GPUs. At most, they have the manufacturer bring in some new tricks bound for their next generation as a boost. They do not design one from scratch, and there is no reason for them to consider doing so in the future.

      The Cell has already been designed. It is now an off-the-shelf processor. There is no need to design a new architecture from scratch. Take the original Cell, increase size up the ring bus, double the SPEs, and then put 4-6 of those

  • Unsurprising (Score:5, Informative)

    by lyinhart ( 1352173 ) on Friday May 27, 2011 @08:58PM (#36269968)
    If this is true, then it is not a surprise. Sony released the PS3, the most technically advanced of all the current generation consoles, only to be outsold by the comparatively weak Wii. And in addition, games released on both PS3 and Xbox 360 generally looked better on the 360 (e.g. Bayonetta).

    Sony of all companies should have known that the most technically advanced console doesn't generally perform the best in the market. Sega's Saturn had a multiprocessor architecture before most game programmers knew how to program for one and the PlayStation destroyed it in the marketplace. Similarly, the PS2 fared better in the marketplace than the technically superior Xbox and GameCube (which was primarily hampered by storage space issues like the N64 before it).

    What is important is third-party support. That's what made the NES, the PlayStation, the PlayStation 2 and other successful consoles. If you have a system developers want to develop for, then you'll get the good quality titles that have people flocking to buy your system.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by MogNuts ( 97512 )

      You're right in that it's all about 3rd party support and making a system desirable to develop for. Microsoft hit the nail on the head with "developers, developers, developers." There's a reason the 360 gets more games and gets games on it first (well 50% anyway, IIRC they pay for a lot of timed exclusives).

      But they just mean that they are going to take off-the-shelf hardware and make a system. It just makes life easier. They're not making an inferior powered one.

  • Less Microsoft forks money to put a bluray drive in next xbox and still sticks with dvd drive then they war is already lost. Dvd can hold so much data and graphic wise way games are getting gonna need the space a bluray disc has.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by MogNuts ( 97512 )

      What I'm about to say is all speculation. Unlike other /. armchair quarterbacks, I fully admit that what I will predict is 100% speculation.

      But honestly, I think MS may just skip the disc route. They'll probably sell everything through the Xbox store, and because retail is so important to consoles, they'll sell a box with packaging, just with a code inside like they do now for DLC to download the game. No more discs. They must continue to support and drive retail because that is the bulk of sales, and this

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by tm2b ( 42473 )
        Also importantly: NO USED GAME SALES. Game publishers believe that they are being killed by used games, and will flock to a platform where they aren't possible.
  • One way to keep the cost down would be to evolve the design, rather then do a completely new version. If they stick with a compatible Cell processor, they could save a lot on software development. This would require a new cheaper version of the Cell, but now that they've done it once that would not be as huge an effort.

    Note that I am not passing judgment, good or bad, on the Cell. The question is how they get to the PS4 and minimize cost and risk,

  • I don't see why they should... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by YesIAmAScript ( 886271 ) on Friday May 27, 2011 @09:07PM (#36270044)

    The PS3 had a lot of power when new. But since it was such a far-out architecture, developers had to work to get to it. And developers generally aren't interested in doing so. They'd rather just port their C code over and type make.

    A system that is a little less powerful but much more conventional (like Xbox 360) could easily cost less and produce better games overall, even if the absolute top levels of capability are reduced.

    • Well it was also a pretty big boondoggle (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Saturday May 28, 2011 @12:36AM (#36271132)

      So when you look back, you discover the Cell was actually intended to be the GPU for the PS3. They thought it would be so good at stream processing that it would do the graphics. I don't know if that was wishful thinking or willful blindness but either way, we all know it didn't work out. Ended up causing a lot of trouble.

      It was really a bad idea for Sony to go and design a new, experimental architecture for use in a consumer system. That is the kind of thing to try in research and maybe high end systems first, and then once it gets refined move towards mainstream.

  • I'm starting to wonder if consoles are a dying breed. They used to come out every 3-5 years like clockwork, with major advances every time. Now every maker seems to be phoning it in. And if Microsoft, king of the 66% hardware failure rate is the only one that takes the next round seriously, I fear for the future.

    I salivated over the release of the PS2. I have tons of games for it, and most of those are JRPGs and DDR. That console just wouldn't die, and it seemed like everyone wanted to release onto it. My W

    • The current console model used by sony and microsoft is broken. They lose money on everything. Microsoft has yet to make a dime on xbox 1 and xbox 360. The lose the money to get marketshare. Sony doesn't have the bank roll to make a 100% in house console anymore. The CPU for the ps4 will be made by ibm, the gpu by them or ati. Anticipate it to have a much more off the shelf components and not so expensive wrapper like the 60GB ps3. All they need is lots of ram (8-12GB) a good gpu + cpu and as little complic
      • If ATI is making the GPU, I genuinely doubt IBM will be making the processor. Not after the large amount of R&D effort that ATI has put in to Fusion, since it has been acquired by an IBM competitor (AMD).

      • Re:Consoles Done For? (Score:4, Informative)

        by shutdown -p now ( 807394 ) on Saturday May 28, 2011 @12:57AM (#36271220) Journal

        The current console model used by sony and microsoft is broken. They lose money on everything. They lose money on everything. Microsoft has yet to make a dime on xbox 1 and xbox 360. The lose the money to get marketshare.

        Xbox is in the red if you account the entire development and marketing history - which was very expensive because of a "let's throw however much money it takes to force ourselves into the market" attitude. But year-to-year business has been profitable since 2008, with revenue ($$$ for licenses, games and peripherals) ahead of expenses (cost of making the console units themselves) - so it would seem to me that the model itself works just fine.

        • year-to-year business has been profitable since 2008, with revenue ($$$ for licenses, games and peripherals) ahead of expenses (cost of making the console units themselves) - so it would seem to me that the model itself works just fine.

          All that actually proves is that it hasn't failed yet. When Microsoft entertainment has finally made more than it has spent over all time, wake me up.

    • I think the reason they are extending the lives of consoles is exactly because the PS2 wouldn't die. It proved itself to be quite a competitor to the PS3, costing a small fraction of its bigger brother and, therefore, much more appealing to emerging markets. The PS3 came out in 2006 and up to 2009 you still had big titles coming to the PS2. (Force Unleashed, Persona etc.) What happens, I think, is that with the PS2, games got to the point where they are actually good-looking. The PS1 could do 3D, but it was

  • The 360s hardware is less impressive then the PS3's hardware, but it's done pretty well for itself. You can build a powerful system without blowing the budget on a whiz-bang effort that's overly expensive to produce and overly complicated for developers to leverage (ie: the PS3).

    All I read from this is that Sony's learned something from what went wrong last time and is more committed to building something they can sell for a realistic price without taking huge losses. Why is that a bad thing?

  • ...an evolution as opposed to a revolution. It'll probably be an upgrade rather than a replacement. The PS3 capability-wise was revolutionary compared to the PS2. The PS4 may only seek to improve upon it by fixing the PS3's existing faults while adding more capabilities. I'd be surprised if the PS4 wasn't backwards-compatible with PS3 only because the PS4 will be so technologically similar.

    Besides which, I think that'd be the wisest path for Sony to take for their next generation console. The PS3 has only s

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Haeleth ( 414428 )

      an evolution as opposed to a revolution

      So ... rather than being created by a bunch of engineers rising up to overthrow their corporate masters and sending the CEO to the guillotine, the PS4 will be created by introducing random errors into the PS3 manufacturing process, copying the errors that lead to better performance, and then waiting millions of years for the effect to be noticable?

      Sounds effective.

  • to me.

    As a purchaser of the the PS3, and having the things I paid for stripped away and my info released due to poor security, I don't care what the performance is because I wouldn't own one if Sony GAVE it to me.

  • That makes 2 of us (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Huntr ( 951770 ) on Friday May 27, 2011 @09:58PM (#36270362)
    Sony has really pissed me off with all their bullshit. So much that, *I* won't be investing heavily in the PS4, either. Like not at all.

  • but Sony's bottom line can't take another similar hit.

    They need the money for network security research.

  • PS4= Off-the-shelf components (Score:3)

    by doctor_no ( 214917 ) on Friday May 27, 2011 @10:25PM (#36270488)

    Yeah, all this is saying is that Sony won't be building expensive proprietary technology like Cell or Blu-ray, and esoteric technology like XDR Ram, into the PS4.

    They probably are going to use off-the-shelf components like MS. Intel, IBM, ATI, Nvidia, all make components that are impressive. There is no need to develop everything from scratch in-house like the PS3. In fact, the MS tactic of using off-the-shelf components (which they have used even on the first Xbox) is clearly the way to go. Outside of a few first-party titles (Killzone, Uncharted,God of War) that look wonderful, most third-party cross-platform titles haven't bothered to tailor their development for the Cell. And as far as the disk format, there really isn't any impetus to go beyond the 50GBs that Blu-ray affords on the PS4.

    The real reality is that game development costs are astronomical for AAA titles. Developing for a single platform really isn't viable, especially if they are using an esoteric architecture like the Cell. Its unreasonable to expect developers to give one platform special attention over the other, and in the same respect its unreasonable for a platform maker to build technology that will go unused into their machine as well.

    Looking at the NGP, Sony seems to have adopted a plain-jane quad-core ARM cortex-A9 and a quad-core PowerVR chipset. Hardware that will be common place in the next year, Qualcomm's Snapdragon APQ8064 is similar in design, Sony clearly intends on having the Playstation Suite on Android phones converge with the NGP. Sony clearly intends on having the PS4 go a similar route.

    It wouldn't be surprising if PS4 uses a ARM CortexA15 (which goes upto 16 cores) and an Nvidia chipset like "Project Denver"; Nvidia ARM/GPU hybrid. So that all development efforts PC/NGP/Android/iOS/360/Nintendo Project Cafe/PS3/PS4 can be brought under one roof. Obviously, the concept of the hardware platform itself is changing for console makers. Cross-platform tools such as Epic's Unreal Engine are becoming mini-platforms unto themselves.

    • Sony spent a lot on developing Cell, and especially on developing Blu-Ray. They can use both of those technologies in a new console without suffering anything like PS3 development costs.

      Sony has been paying for die shrinks of Cell and RSX this entire generation, as they've been lowering the cost of the PS3s they are selling. Cell itself was designed to be a scalable architecture, with support for multiprocessing (i.e., multiple Cells) from the beginning. They could put a 28nm next gen Cell chip with 2 PP

  • Meh (Score:3)

    by Vskye ( 9079 ) on Saturday May 28, 2011 @01:50AM (#36271400)

    I ain't ever buying anything Sony again, so it doesn't matter.

Slashdot Top Deals

news: gotcha

Close