PS4 in <5 years?

[RepoMan]

Interesting thread at Evil Avatar (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22183) on whether Sony might shorten the PS3's life cycle.

Makes sense to me. If you think of this generation as the role reversal of Sony and Microsoft -- Microsoft being first to ship the 360, with a cheaper-to-manufacture console; Sony being second with a more expensive console -- and if you remember last generation where Microsoft killed the XBox early because it was never gonna make much money... well, you wind up with the odds being that a new generation of post-Kutaragi Sony management will decide to terminate the overly expensive PS3 albatross that much sooner, and ship a cheaper, more profitable PS4 earlier than would otherwise have been the case.

Net result: Microsoft and Sony competing much more directly on price; console lifecycles shortened by another year; and console installed base starting to grow much more quickly due to overall lower cost.

Discuss!

[Matthew Gallant]

It's just stupid enough that Sony would do it!

[Charles]

If they shorten the lifecycle, they have to make BC work or they are going to lose developers. 5 years is enough that even an ambitious game can start after the console's launch and still make it during that console's lifespan. 4 years, and it starts entering grey areas. Ultimately it would mean that developers of a game with a projected average development time of 2.5 years would only have a window of 1.5 years to actually start developing. Outside of that window, and they'd enter the area where they'd be shipping for an old platform.

Dangerous waters, these.

[Tom McNamara]

I recall the number 4 being indicative of bad luck in China and Japan. They'll probably call it the Sony 400 (a higher number than 360). Or the Sony 800 (higher than 720 and also including "8," which is a lucky number).

What's more interesting to me is that developing for the "PS4" at this stage sounds like a philosophical abandonment of the PS3, and it's barely out the door.

[AndrewM]

Why would a PS4 be cheaper for Sony than the PS3? My understanding is that the Xbox1 cost MS lots of money because they had to license all the tech, whereas the PS3 costs a lot because it has Blu-Ray, which Sony doesn't have to pay license fees for.

[Hetzer]

Of course they have to shorten the live cycle they are a year behind. Next time when there is a new xbox there better have to be a new ps too.

[ciparis]

Never believe stories taken out of context from a statement made by a software company executive who isn't in a position to know anything like that to begin with, especially when the topic at hand is on an off-hand remark like "where will we be in 5 years", with the enthusiasts clearly putting much more emphasis and evaluation on the throwaway number than the speaker ever put into choosing it to begin with.

[RepoMan]

Why would a PS4 be cheaper for Sony than the PS3?
Because they might choose not to include blu-ray with every box, and they might choose a cheaper processor architecture than Cell. In other words, they might try to build a cheap console, rather than a Discipline For Everyone Uber Performance Machine. I'm not saying they will, I'm just asking whether they might.

[Jazar]

What Andrew said, Sony's PS3 will drop in price significantly year after year, the original Xbox lost money throughout its entire life.

[Coca Cola Zero]

I doubt anyone will significantly decrease the console lifecycle anymore. If anything, I expect it to just keep getting longer, for the reasons Charles already mentioned.

I don't think Microsoft would have gotten away with the lifecycle shortening they did with the 360's release as well as they did if not for it coinciding with the period in which HDTV started being semi-affordable, and I don't expect we'll see another resolution bump like HDTV for a long, long time. That, coupled with development schedules always getting longer means longer console lifespans.

[Jason Cross]

If you think of this generation as the role reversal of Sony and Microsoft -- Microsoft being first to ship the 360, with a cheaper-to-manufacture console

I don't think you can make that claim so easily. Sega actually started the last generation (early) and Sony came in with a more expensive system. Microsoft just came way later with an even MORE expensive system. Though really, both systems probably cost the same to manufacture when they were first released.

and if you remember last generation where Microsoft killed the XBox early

I'm probably alone in this, but I don't think Microsoft "killed the Xbox early." It's more like they launched it late, and shipped the 360 on time.

They came in late with the Xbox, probably too late. But shortly after doing so, they took at look at console life-cycles and when the Dreamcast, PS2, and Gamecube launched (first global availability, that is) and said "okay the typical cycle is 5-6 years. Let's target end of 2005 for the 360 launch.

Remember, the original date for the PS3 was going to be Spring 2006. They were going to be less than 6 months behind Microsoft. If MS has given the Xbox it's "full lifespan" they would have been a year behind Sony, AGAIN.

This time around, I think Sony and Nintendo are launching a bit late. It matters little to Nintendo, since they're not competing to be the latest and greatest but rather to be different - and different is not time sensitive. Sony is launching late even by their own standards, having delayed the system from a very public promise of Spring 2006 to the fall, and pushing out Europe even further after promising they would get it this year.

To go back to the original topic - will Sony cut the PS3 lifespan short? No, I don't think they will. I think the PS3 launched late and the PS4 will launch on time, either Holiday 2010 or 2011. That will give the PS3 a shorter life than the PS2, but that has more to do with the PS3 being late than the PS4 being "early." I think Sony will be more conservative about some of their hardware choices, to make it easier to hit production goals and dates. It wouldn't surprise me if it used blu-ray again, for example, albeit a faster BD-ROM drive. Those will be much cheaper and easy to mass-produce by then.

[JD]

Because they might choose not to include blu-ray with every box, and they might choose a cheaper processor architecture than Cell.
By the time the next generation arrives, Blu-ray drives probably are not really going to be a huge cost factor anymore.

-Julian

[Desslock]

By the time the next generation arrives, Blu-ray drives probably are not really going to be a huge cost factor anymore.

They may also be as obsolete as laserdisks.

[ciparis]

I'd say 11 or 12, Jason. I don't really consider this a 2006 launch as much as a 2007 one. 3 real years, even on the inside, seems awfully short.

[K0NY]

The original Playstation lasted well past the launch of the PS2. As I suspect, the PS2 will last well past the PS3's launch. Sony has a history of supporting their developers by building in backward compatibility. So even if you're late to the party with your game, there's enough of an installed base on the original console you may be developing for, and an expanding market with the new one.

That said, I think this speculation is all premature. Sony also announced they were starting development on the PS3 around the same time the PS2 launched. That lasted six years, despite Sony's machine being trumped by a more powerful Xbox after release. So there's no reason to think that the lifespan of PS3 will be any shorter now that Sony has a leg up in terms of horsepower. The spokesmen have been saying the console will be around for ten years. If the past is any indication, that means we can expect the new iteration around six or seven years from now.

[Jason Cross]

I'd say 11 or 12, Jason. I don't really consider this a 2006 launch as much as a 2007 one. 3 real years, even on the inside, seems awfully short.

If this is a 2007 launch, then christmas 2010 or 11 is really an 11 or 12 launch, right? I think we're talking about the same years.

I'm saying I think the next system will launch in 4-5 "real" years. From xmas this year to xmas 2010 is 4 years, xmas 2011 is 5. It's adding a year to the 5-6 year cycle of the PS2 and taking it from the PS3.

As I suspect, the PS2 will last well past the PS3's launch. Sony has a history of supporting their developers by building in backward compatibility.

Not only that, but the PS2 is going to be the primary seller in many parts of the world for at least a couple more years. Places where they can only afford $149 consoles, and those are extravagant. The $20 greatest hits type collections and other older, cheaper games continue to sell over those times. It's a "long tail" effect - 20 months of low sales of your game on the old platform in markets that aren't the "big three" add up to a couple million more units.

[krayzkrok]

I recall the number 4 being indicative of bad luck in China and Japan.

In Cantonese, the word "four" and "death" sound very similar. When I lived in Hong Kong, no respectable HK Chinese would ever be found living on the fourth floor of an appt block, only the gweilos. My dad's car numberplate included "4484" which when pronounced in Cantonese meant "Death Death Very Death" so were were told. No chance of it being stolen, then.

So that would make the PS4 the Playstation Death! Muahahaha...

[Hanacker]

In Cantonese, the word "four" and "death" sound very similar.

Japanese as well but it's not a huge deal there.

[ciparis]

When I lived in Hong Kong, no respectable HK Chinese would ever be found living on the fourth floor of an appt block, only the gweilos.
My old condo in Toronto was missing two floors: 4 and (I think) 13. Craziness :P

[Wholly Schmidt]

My old condo in Toronto was missing two floors: 4 and (I think) 13. Craziness :P
If you jump out the 14th floor window you will die earlier.

[Thomas Wilde]

Wow. The more I hear about what Sony has planned, the smarter Nintendo looks for some reason, with their cheaper console that didn't take much time to develop and is cheap to develop for.

I recall the number 4 being indicative of bad luck in China and Japan. They'll probably call it the Sony 400 (a higher number than 360). Or the Sony 800 (higher than 720 and also including "8," which is a lucky number).

4 is the number of death, isn't it?

[fuzzyslug]

Hasn't Nintendo already mentioned that they are targeting a 4-5 year time span for the Wii? If so, I wouldn't say that Sony will shorten the PS3's life span but I would say they won't get much wiggle room in terms of delays.

[Charles]

My old condo in Toronto was missing two floors: 4 and (I think) 13. Craziness :P

Ditto, except it was also missing 14 and 24.

[John Sansker]

Heh, so, a 3-4 year lifespan on consoles?
Gettin into PC territory there.

[Ben Sones]

Yeah, they are. Pricewise, as well. PCs, by contrast, can go a lot longer before they need upgrading these days. You can get away with 3-4 years between upgrades without much difficulty.

[K0NY]

Yeah, they are. Pricewise, as well. PCs, by contrast, can go a lot longer before they need upgrading these days. You can get away with 3-4 years between upgrades without much difficulty.*
* If you don't mind your games looking and running like crap.

[Charles]

* If you don't mind your games looking and running like crap.

True, but you can also usually spend about $200 a year to keep it running decent by just upgrading your videocard.

[John Sansker]

True, but you can also usually spend about $200 a year to keep it running decent by just upgrading your videocard.

Or, spend a little more and run a card for about 2 years.
My system is now 2 years old, and I just put in a 8800GTX, in theory I've got at least another year or so before I need a new CPU/mobo now.
Tho, another Gig of ram problably wouldn't hurt.

[Ben Sones]

* If you don't mind your games looking and running like crap.

Running like crap? Hardly. Most of the things that task your system these days are things like shadow and shader options that are easily turned off.

Looking like crap? Hardly. They won't look as good as they could with a newer system, certainly. With the graphics options cranked down, they'll probably look a lot like the games you were playing when your system was new. But you know, PS3 games are going to look about the same 3-4 years from now as they do today, too. Will you be complaining about how they all "look like crap" at that point? Somehow, I doubt it.

[Jason Becker]

* If you don't mind your games looking and running like crap.


Clueless post post of the day award right here.

[Kevin Grey]

But you know, PS3 games are going to look about the same 3-4 years from now as they do today, too.

I hope not. Consoles traditionally have seen significant gains in visuals over their lifespan as devs become familiar with them. Certainly the average PS2 game of 2004 looked significantly better than the average PS2 game of 2000.

[TheTrunkDr]

My old condo in Toronto was missing two floors: 4 and (I think) 13. Craziness :P
This makes me think that you lived in the same condo as Charles and myself. Probably not since damn near every building in TO doesn't have a 4th, 13th, 14th, etc. floor.

[Charles]

I hope not. Consoles traditionally have seen significant gains in visuals over their lifespan as devs become familiar with them. Certainly the average PS2 game of 2004 looked significantly better than the average PS2 game of 2000.

That's not really true. If you run around and compare screenshots, the only games that look significantly better are the above average games from the above average developers. Not many games have topped MGS2 for visuals, and that game was released a year after the release of the PS2. That crappy developers get better over the lifespan of the machine doesn't mean that the machine as a whole looks better at the end.

[Mark Asher]

Heh, so, a 3-4 year lifespan on consoles?
Gettin into PC territory there.

Yeah, and if you are hardcore you want all three systems, with all the extras (Live, HD Players, etc.). It’s easily becoming as expensive as PC hardware, if not more so. You can drag out the lifespan of a gaming PC now just by spending money on a new video card.

[Kevin Grey]

That's not really true. If you run around and compare screenshots, the only games that look significantly better are the above average games from the above average developers. Not many games have topped MGS2 for visuals, and that game was released a year after the release of the PS2. That crappy developers get better over the lifespan of the machine doesn't mean that the machine as a whole looks better at the end.

Well, I'm specifically referring to average visuals. And, yeah, I do that that average games looking better over the life of a console does make the machine as a whole look better in the end. And MGS2 was a year and a half after PS2 release. I certainly expect PS3 games a year and a half from now to look significantly better than what we've seen at launch.

To me, you need MGS2 or Gears of War to set a bar for other devs to aspire to. If GoW remains an outlier on the 360 and we're looking at three to four years with the caliber of visuals I saw on 360 this year then, yes, I will be very disappointed.

[Ben Sones]

Kevin, I agree with you, but for the purposes of this conversation the point is moot. Developers don't utilize the full capabilities of PC hardware when it's new, either, so it's not like this is an advantage that consoles have over the PC, one way or the other.

[Kevin Grey]

Kevin, I agree with you, but for the purposes of this conversation the point is moot. Developers don't utilize the full capabilities of PC hardware when it's new, either, so it's not like this is an advantage that consoles have over the PC, one way or the other.


Oh yeah, I was just sort of picking out that statement- I don't agree with K0NY's point.

[Charles]

Well, I'm specifically referring to average visuals. And, yeah, I do that that average games looking better over the life of a console does make the machine as a whole look better in the end. And MGS2 was a year and a half after PS2 release.

Sure, if you count from Japan's no games launch. PS2 was october 2000 in NA, MGS2 was november 2001.

Anyway, I don't think average visuals are significantly better. I tried to think up a game series that isn't outright bad without being the most known IP in the world, with multiple iterations/sequels on the PS2. I thought of Timesplitters. If you look at screens for all there, there isn't a huge tech difference.

Fact is, a developer who doesn't have the knowhow to develop a strong game, won't have the knowhow to develop a better engine over time either.

[rjcc]

Sure, if you count from Japan's no games launch. PS2 was october 2000 in NA, MGS2 was november 2001.

Anyway, I don't think average visuals are significantly better. I tried to think up a game series that isn't outright bad without being the most known IP in the world, with multiple iterations/sequels on the PS2. I thought of Timesplitters. If you look at screens for all there, there isn't a huge tech difference.

Fact is, a developer who doesn't have the knowhow to develop a strong game, won't have the knowhow to develop a better engine over time either.

games within a franchise aren't the same though, as they usually go back to the same engine over and over. the average game built from the ground up later usually looks much better, later iterations of the same game just look tired.

[Charles]

games within a franchise aren't the same though, as they usually go back to the same engine over and over. the average game built from the ground up later usually looks much better, later iterations of the same game just look tired.


The average game built from the ground up will only look better if the developer has experience with the machine; otherwise they are making their own first gen PS2 engine.

[Jazar]

I can't believe that this is even a discussion. Pick a random title from the begning of a console's lifestyle and pick a random title at the end - chances are you're going to see a big difference.

EA themselves have gone on record (http://ps3.qj.net/EA-using-only-20-of-PS3-s-muscles/pg/49/aid/75650) that their current PS3 titles use only 20% of the system's power.

[rjcc]

The average game built from the ground up will only look better if the developer has experience with the machine; otherwise they are making their own first gen PS2 engine.

That's not at all true, it will look better if they have access to tools and process that were used on earlier games, as most decently funded developers seem to have.

and even if they did make a previous game, that wasn't in the same series, and is now on a all new engine, how does that at all disprove or disagree with what I said?

[rjcc]

I can't believe that this is even a discussion. Pick a random title from the begning of a console's lifestyle and pick a random title at the end - chances are you're going to see a big difference.

EA themselves have gone on record (http://ps3.qj.net/EA-using-only-20-of-PS3-s-muscles/pg/49/aid/75650) that their current PS3 titles use only 20% of the system's power.

"we're using XX% of the system's power" is a pretty BS statement to base anything on. It's impossible to prove

[Ben Sones]

EA themselves have gone on record (http://ps3.qj.net/EA-using-only-20-of-PS3-s-muscles/pg/49/aid/75650) that their current PS3 titles use only 20% of the system's power.

Find me any example of a later PS2 game that looks five times better than any PS2 launch title, and I'll consider believing that. I agree with Kevin that the games look better as developers get more experience with the hardware, but they don't get anywhere near that much better. It's generally more like the improvement you see going from MGS2 to MGS3. There's definitely an improvement there, but it's incremental.

[Qenan]

Did any PS2 launch title look anywhere near as good as God of War?

[Jason Becker]

I can't believe that this is even a discussion. Pick a random title from the begning of a console's lifestyle and pick a random title at the end - chances are you're going to see a big difference.

EA themselves have gone on record (http://ps3.qj.net/EA-using-only-20-of-PS3-s-muscles/pg/49/aid/75650) that their current PS3 titles use only 20% of the system's power.


I don't. There are plenty of current games on the PS2 or Xbox that don't look any better than stuff released 2+ years ago. Granted the Xbox stuff anymore is mostly ports from the base PS2 version, but its still more about the quality of the developer, and the development time they have.

[forgeforsaken]

For those paying attention, Jazar is actually more pro-Sony than K0ny.

[TheTrunkDr]

Did any PS2 launch title look anywhere near as good as God of War?
DOA2: Hardcore maybe.

[Ben Sones]

Did any PS2 launch title look anywhere near as good as God of War?

Does God of War look better than any PS2 launch title? Sure. Does it look five times better? Not even remotely. Bear in mind, in terms of graphical horsepower, a 5x increase is comparable to, say, the difference between the N64 and the Gamecube. If EA says that they are only using 20% of the PS3's graphical power with their current games, then I submit to you that EA is full of shit.

Which shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, really.

[forgeforsaken]

Yeah I think everyone expects later generation titles will look better than launch titles, but the graphical jumb that the Sony faithul are hoping for I just don't see hapening. I expect both the 360 and the PS3 will improve over time. A lot of folks seem to pull out these 20% numbers as some way to justify the PS3 being better than the 360 even if current 360 titles look better than the PS3. These same folks like to bring up dreamcast v. ps2 a lot, but honestly for a system to be consistantly better I'd expect more of a xbox v. ps2 level of difference at launch.

[ciparis]

The challenge is not on the same scale as previous generations or the 360. Cell isn't just multi-core, it's WEIRD and multi-core. It's going to take more time than usual, and the expected payoff for the skilled teams will be higher than usual while also requiring more dedicated investment -- often stuff that isn't going to carry over to other platforms. For many teams, they're never going to tap the console's potential (through weighed choice or ability, though continually improving tools should help), so I would look for greater than usual disparity between the best and the worst; Titus games on the Amiga come to mind.

[Jazar]

For those paying attention, Jazar is actually more pro-Sony than K0ny.

Scary since he has one and I sold mine. :)

Regarding the 20% thing, don't take the quote and make misguided assumptions like the graphics will be 5x better. It's just an indication that there is still a lot of potential then what was gained at launch. It's exciting to think of how things will be in a few years. Look at how games evolve over a system's lifetime: Mario 64 -> Zelda -> Majora's Mask. GTA3 -> Vice City -> San Andreas. Halo -> Halo 2.

[Jason Cross]

Sure, if you count from Japan's no games launch. PS2 was october 2000 in NA, MGS2 was november 2001.

I think counting from the "no-game launch" in Japan is appropriate, because we're talking about amount of development time since the final hardware went on sale here, and improved quality over time. And it's a Japanese developer, too. If we were talking about NA market penetration or sales or something, it would be more appropriate to talk about time starting at the NA launch.

If EA says that they are only using 20% of the PS3's graphical power with their current games, then I submit to you that EA is full of shit.

Of course they are. Or rather, marketing people are spouting numbers without really understanding the tech side of it.

In order for EA to truly be using 20% of the PS3's power, all the following would have to be true:

1) They're using 20% of the GPU (1/5th of the cycles or 1/5 of the pipelines, and 1/5th the memory bandwidth)
2) They're using 20% of the PS3's memory
3) They're using 20% of the blu-ray's capacity and throughput
4) They're using 20% of the Cell's peak computational power

I imagine #4 is correct. They're probably fully utilizing that PowerPC core and poorly using (bad optimization) a few of the SPEs. They can probably get a LOT more out of the Cell for certain kinds of operations. But I'm sure EA utilizing the GPU quite well already, nearly maxing out the BD-ROM's read throughput, and totally filling up the RAM. PS3 games are definitely going to look better, but not five times better and not even two times better.

Then there's the whole "how much more power equal how much better looking" thing. You need to be 10X as powerful to look 3X as good. It just takes more and more computation, bandwidth, etc. to keep pushing graphics and interactivity upwards. An Xbox was really about 3-4X as powerful as a PS2, but the games certainly didn't look 3-4X better. Maybe 50% better, to the common person - and in some cases, not even that much.

[rjcc]

Scary since he has one and I sold mine. :)

Regarding the 20% thing, it's totally meaningless marketing babble that has absolutely no relevance in the real world

Fixed that for you.

[Bill Dungsroman]

Since it will be the 4th iteration and given the superstitions the Japanes have for the number 4, I suppose they will call it the Playstation Flerg or something and drop the 4.

[Jazar]

I imagine #4 is correct. They're probably fully utilizing that PowerPC core and poorly using (bad optimization) a few of the SPEs. They can probably get a LOT more out of the Cell for certain kinds of operations. But I'm sure EA utilizing the GPU quite well already, nearly maxing out the BD-ROM's read throughput, and totally filling up the RAM. PS3 games are definitely going to look better, but not five times better and not even two times better.

Then there's the whole "how much more power equal how much better looking" thing. You need to be 10X as powerful to look 3X as good. It just takes more and more computation, bandwidth, etc. to keep pushing graphics and interactivity upwards. An Xbox was really about 3-4X as powerful as a PS2, but the games certainly didn't look 3-4X better. Maybe 50% better, to the common person - and in some cases, not even that much.

Well said. People are taking that statement way too literally.

[Moore]

possibly due to some jackass literally saying it?

[Talorc]

The challenge is not on the same scale as previous generations or the 360. Cell isn't just multi-core, it's WEIRD and multi-core. It's going to take more time than usual, and the expected payoff for the skilled teams will be higher than usual while also requiring more dedicated investment -- often stuff that isn't going to carry over to other platforms. For many teams, they're never going to tap the console's potential (through weighed choice or ability, though continually improving tools should help), so I would look for greater than usual disparity between the best and the worst; Titus games on the Amiga come to mind.
Their best selling NA title to date has sold less than 100,000 copies right?

If they don't fix THAT soon, no one is going to get even remotely near even thinking about putting a highly skilled, dedicated team to work on the console for 2+ years to figure it out.

I would be getting very very nervous if I was a publisher with a lot of salary and development going into PS3 at the moment. Unless some big sellers start appearing soon (6 - 12 months) the best PS3 can hope for is ports from other consoles, and no dedicated development outside of Sony studios.

[Ben Sones]

Well said. People are taking that statement way too literally.

You are the one who brought it up in the first place, right after saying that we are "going to see a big difference" between launch games and future-gen games on the PS3. So how exactly were we supposed to take it? I do agree with Jason that future PS3 titles will probably only look marginally better than current titles, though I'm surprised that you agree with him, since that's pretty much the opposite of what you were saying.

[K0NY]

PC game developers partner with video card makers to create games which push people to upgrade their hardware. So the video card you buy may work with future PC games, but the game has been designed to look better on other hardware.

With consoles, the developers are making games that are specifically designed to work best on the hardware you own. You don't have to spend a few hundred every year to keep up. I can play a launch PS2 game or God of War 2 with the same hardware.

You guys wanted to see a difference between launch games and older games? Here you go:
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a289/K0NY/DigitalLife/ssx.jpg
That was a launch title called SSX.

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a289/K0NY/DigitalLife/SSXontour.jpg
This is SSX on Tour from 2005.

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a289/K0NY/DigitalLife/hawk4b.jpg
Tony Hawk 4

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a289/K0NY/DigitalLife/hawk8b.jpg
Tony Hawk 8

These are all from PS2.

[Coca Cola Zero]

There is absolutely no way that Tony Hawk 8 screenshot is from the PS2 version.

Edit: Also, the shot you used from the original SSX is ridiculously over-simplistic and not representative of how most of the game looked, there were sections of the game far, far, far "busier" than that screenshot.

[Ben]

And while those all look better, they don't look FIVE times better, which is an absurd number.

Mario 64
http://www.gamerankings.com/screens/Adventure/3rdPerson/461/6.jpg
Mario Sunshine
http://www.gamecritics.com/review/supermariosun/screen01.jpg
I believe EA when they say they are only using 20% of the PS3, I don't believe that they'll ever be able to use 100% of the PS3. The architecture just doesn't work that way.

As Charles said, midrange developers tend to make big increases, but the top teams don't take very long to figure the system out. FFX and MGS2 would not be out of place as a modern PS2 title.

FFX
http://z.about.com/f/wiki/e/en/2/2c/Ffx.jpg

FFXII
http://www.rapidgaming.com/img/ffxii/screen/screen_12.jpg

[John Sansker]

Yeah, and if you are hardcore you want all three systems, with all the extras (Live, HD Players, etc.). It’s easily becoming as expensive as PC hardware, if not more so. You can drag out the lifespan of a gaming PC now just by spending money on a new video card.

That is something I hadn't considered. That, most console gamers will buy all the current consoles due to console A having this "exclusive" game and console B having another and so on.
So, $400 for an X360, $600? for a PS3 and I have no idea what a Wii is supposed to sell for, the lowest price I found is $549.99.
Add in another $1000 or so for an HDTV, more if you want 1080p.
You're looking at $2500+ for all 3 consoles with no games or accessories.

Hmm, ammo for my next "discussion" with the console guys at Gamestop.
They give me crap about, "you spent $3,000 on your PC".
"Well, yeah, I wanted it to last more than 6 months".

[AndrewM]

Since it will be the 4th iteration and given the superstitions the Japanes have for the number 4, I suppose they will call it the Playstation Flerg or something and drop the 4.

How about the Playstation Yourfamilywilldieahorribledeath?

[K0NY]

Ben, Mario Sunshine was on the Gamecube and Mario64 wasn't.

There is absolutely no way that Tony Hawk 8 screenshot is from the PS2 version.
http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/sports/tonyhawksproject8/screenindex.html

[Coca Cola Zero]

I don't care how Gamespot mislabeled that picture, it (very, very) obviously isn't from the PS2 version. Do you not see the giant discrepancy between the "screens added on Nov 8th" (which that one is from) and those added on Dec 7th? Clearly the earlier bunch are just generic shots of Project 8 and not PS2 specific and Gamespot just stuck them to the PS2 listing for the game back when they had no PS2 specific shots. The difference between that set (I have no idea if they are 360 shots or PS3 shots, but they certainly aren't PS2 shots) and the newer set (which very likely are from the PS2, they certainly look PS2ish) is pretty large.

[forgeforsaken]

http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/sports/tonyhawksproject8/screenindex.html

Those Nov shots look to have been put on the wrong page because if you look at the more recent Dec shots it looks a LOT like TH4 and not at all like that picture.

TH:P8 PS2 shot from Dec 7
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2006/340/reviews/932974_20061207_screen004.jpg

[K0NY]

Gee, I guess you're right fellas. Your screenshot doesn't support the point I'm making as much as mine does. So of course, yours must be more valid than mine. When these websites fuck up a graphics comparison, and I call them on it, then everyone says I'm wrong. But now that the site's lack of attention to detail gets in the way of someone else's argument, it's a different story all together.

Anyway, the point hasn't changed. Games made early in the life of a console look different from games made years later, and later games take better advantage of the hardware. I don't know who came up with this 5x figure but it's a silly idea. Assuming a current game only uses 20% of a console's power, later games which take more advantage of the hardware won't be a multiple of anything. They may have more complex physics models, better sound, or higher resolution textures. Saying a game that uses 80% of the system's potential should be four times better looking than one which uses 20% forgets all the non-graphical elements.

[Jazar]

You are the one who brought it up in the first place, right after saying that we are "going to see a big difference" between launch games and future-gen games on the PS3. So how exactly were we supposed to take it? I do agree with Jason that future PS3 titles will probably only look marginally better than current titles, though I'm surprised that you agree with him, since that's pretty much the opposite of what you were saying.

The purpose of bringing up that quote in the first place wasn't to indicate that the PS3's graphics will be 5x better in the future but just to show that there IS room for improvement. That's it. The exact number is irrelevant to my point and I'm sorry to have brought it up if it means that people get lost in the "PR-ness" of it. My only point is that launch games don't look as good as games 2 or 3 or 4 years down the system's cycle and I'm surprised that more people don't agree with that simple sentiment. You may call it "marginally better" while I see it as "a big difference" but that's arguing over relative opinion.

[Dave Weinstein]

Games do get better over the life of a console.

However, the reason they get better is that companies invest a lot of money and staff time in understanding and taking advantage of the system. The harder the system is to develop for, the more expensive and difficult that is.

Companies invested the money in PS2 development because it dominated the market so completely.

If, however, the PS3 does not dominate the market (which seems likely) , that level of committment is unlikely. If the PS3 gets lead SKUs (which means getting the top teams, instead of the lesser port teams), then there will be definite improvement. If the Xbox 360 gets lead SKUs, then I would expect to see the investment on the PS3 for most companies being sufficient to let the PS3 use the same content assets as the 360 version.

Given the current market penetration, and what I have heard about the relative strengths of the hardware and tools chains, I would expect to see the 360 as the lead SKU in most cases.

The Wii is the interesting oddball -- to develop for it you need both less resource intensive content and a customized design for the controller (which cannot be ported as-is to either of the other two consoles).

[forgeforsaken]

The purpose of bringing up that quote in the first place wasn't to indicate that the PS3's graphics will be 5x better in the future but just to show that there IS room for improvement.

Everyone knows this though, no reasonable person thinks games aren't going to improve. The only reason people actually seem to bring this up is to say "see see it will be better than the 360 graphically, see!" Which is what a lot of us still are not sold on. The same people that bring up the PS3 room for growth typically ignore the idea that the 360 is going to improve as well, they seem sold on the idea that Gears is the best the 360 will ever do, yet the PS3 will continue to improve.

[Jazar]

However, the reason they get better is that companies invest a lot of money and staff time in understanding and taking advantage of the system. The harder the system is to develop for, the more expensive and difficult that is.

Companies invested the money in PS2 development because it dominated the market so completely.

If, however, the PS3 does not dominate the market (which seems likely) , that level of committment is unlikely. If the PS3 gets lead SKUs (which means getting the top teams, instead of the lesser port teams), then there will be definite improvement. If the Xbox 360 gets lead SKUs, then I would expect to see the investment on the PS3 for most companies being sufficient to let the PS3 use the same content assets as the 360 version.

Very true, which is why I hope that PS3 will succeed enough to get programmers to work on getting the most out of the system. Like any system, without proper support it will be dead before you can say "Sega CD".

Everyone knows this though, no reasonable person thinks games aren't going to improve.

I thought everyone knew this too but that wasn't the impression that I got from the previous postings. Maybe I just misinterpreted. My opinions of course applies 100% to the 360 as well. If we get Gears within a year of its lifecycle I'm excited to see what can be accomplished later on!

[Ben Sones]

Gee, I guess you're right fellas. Your screenshot doesn't support the point I'm making as much as mine does. So of course, yours must be more valid than mine.

No, yours is less valid because it's not a PS2 screenshot.

The purpose of bringing up that quote in the first place wasn't to indicate that the PS3's graphics will be 5x better in the future but just to show that there IS room for improvement. That's it. The exact number is irrelevant to my point and I'm sorry to have brought it up if it means that people get lost in the "PR-ness" of it. My only point is that launch games don't look as good as games 2 or 3 or 4 years down the system's cycle and I'm surprised that more people don't agree with that simple sentiment.

What are you talking about? Nobody disagrees with that. The debate isn't whether or not games will look better; the debate is "how much better." Then you jumped into the conversation with "EA says they are only using 20% of the PS3's power." Is it any surprise that people assume that you are making a claim with regard to the "how much better" question?

[Squirrel Killer]

Gee, I guess you're right fellas. Your screenshot doesn't support the point I'm making as much as mine does. So of course, yours must be more valid than mine.
Let's just say that someone's screenshit isn't valid, because there's no way that this:
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2006/340/reviews/932974_20061207_screen004.jpg

and this:
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a289/K0NY/DigitalLife/hawk8b.jpg

are representative screenshots from the same game on the same console. Now, I haven't played the game to know which is more accurate, but regarding the second, I do wonder how well the game plays with no UI.

[Jazar]

What are you talking about? Nobody disagrees with that. I didn't get that impression from reading Charles' posts but again I may have misinterpreted.

[Ben Sones]

are representative screenshots from the same game on the same console. Now, I haven't played the game to know which is more accurate, but regarding the second, I do wonder how well the game plays with no UI.

It plays at a resolution higher than the PS2 is capable of outputting, if that screenshot is any indication. Also with all new textures and models, and a new renderer that gives them normal mapping and self-shadowing models. The developers have been busy since that first screenshot!

[Charlatan]

This makes me think that you lived in the same condo as Charles and myself. Probably not since damn near every building in TO doesn't have a 4th, 13th, 14th, etc. floor.

That's starting to sound really crazy. What's with all the number phobia!

[TheTrunkDr]

That's starting to sound really crazy. What's with all the number phobia!
Toronto has lots of Asians and Asian money there. Many of the newer condo builders are from Asian companies so they like to skip any floor with the number 4 in it. However the building is in North America and it's tradtional for us to skip the 13th floor. I was living on 31st floor of a 28 story building.

[rjcc]

The purpose of bringing up that quote in the first place wasn't to indicate that the PS3's graphics will be 5x better in the future but just to show that there IS room for improvement. That's it. The exact number is irrelevant to my point and I'm sorry to have brought it up if it means that people get lost in the "PR-ness" of it. My only point is that launch games don't look as good as games 2 or 3 or 4 years down the system's cycle and I'm surprised that more people don't agree with that simple sentiment. You may call it "marginally better" while I see it as "a big difference" but that's arguing over relative opinion.

thank you for pointing out that games a year from now or two or 4 might look better than games now on the same system. We would likely never have reached that conclusion on our own.

It needed to be said, because if it hadn't, I'm pretty sure everyone would have assumed development progress stops with launch titles.

[ciparis]

It needed to be said, because if it hadn't, I'm pretty sure everyone would have assumed development progress stops with launch titles.
And yet, three pages later people are still arguing back and forth over the specific meaning of some rep's non-specific prognostication. Non-specific referring of course (before some intentionally obtuse twit quotes the number) to the unqualified use of the word "potential".

[ciparis]

This makes me think that you lived in the same condo as Charles and myself. Probably not since damn near every building in TO doesn't have a 4th, 13th, 14th, etc. floor.
It was on St. Patrick street, about 6 years ago.

[Coca Cola Zero]

Gee, I guess you're right fellas. Your screenshot doesn't support the point I'm making as much as mine does. So of course, yours must be more valid than mine. When these websites fuck up a graphics comparison, and I call them on it, then everyone says I'm wrong. But now that the site's lack of attention to detail gets in the way of someone else's argument, it's a different story all together.

Console graphics do tend to get better over the life of a console. I don't think anyone sane is disputing that, but they don't get insanely better. There isn't a PS2 game out there, including God of War or SotC, that doesn't have telltale signs of being a PS2 game, regardless of having some extra polish over launch titles.

As far as the PS2 screenshot thing above goes, I don't want to be an ass about it or anything but if you believed, even for a second, that the high-res picture of TH8 you linked was generated on a PS2, any opinion you have on the subject of image quality on consoles is instantly suspect. I mean, well before I knew where you got that picture it was incredibly obvious it didn't come off the PS2. No PS2 game has ever looked that good (technically, I'm not talking about art direction) and no PS2 game ever would even if developers were still cranking out games for it 10 years from now. It isn't even a close call or anything, it is blindingly obvious that isn't from the PS2.

[RepoMan]

How about the Playstation Yourfamilywilldieahorribledeath?
EvilDeathStation!

[freethinker]

Isn't this just a misunderstanding? The PS3 will last 10 years in the same way the PS1 lasted 10 years. I can't remember anyone saying the PS4 wouldn't be out for 10 years. That's just daft.

In five years BluRay drives will be really cheap and the advances made in the Cell will be standard. The PS4 will be around 30 times more powerful than PS3 and cheaper. That's the way it goes.

[Coca Cola Zero]

The PS4 will be around 30 times more powerful than PS3 and cheaper. That's the way it goes.

Like the PS3 is cheaper than the PS2 was...?

[Ben]

Ben, Mario Sunshine was on the Gamecube and Mario64 wasn't.

That's my point. Look at the difference between the two Mario shots and the two Final Fantasy shots. The Mario games were released 6 years apart, the FF games 5. It seems like around 1-2 years after launch the talented developers figure out what the system can do and that's more or less the end of the growing pains.

[Qenan]

But the Mario games aren't comparable if they are on different platforms.

[freethinker]

Like the PS3 is cheaper than the PS2 was...?
No. BluRay and multicore chips won't be new technology and motion sensing will be cheaper.

The "wow" factor won't be as much of an issue. Look at the jump between a state of the art PS1 and PS2 era game. Now look at the PS2/PS3 jump. It's getting smaller every time. They could make the PS4 40 times more powerful than the PS3 but I don't think most people will me able to tell the difference between 30x and 40x so they'll go for 30x and keep the price down.

[Ben]

But the Mario games aren't comparable if they are on different platforms.


Does God of War look better than any PS2 launch title? Sure. Does it look five times better? Not even remotely. Bear in mind, in terms of graphical horsepower, a 5x increase is comparable to, say, the difference between the N64 and the Gamecube.

Emphasis mine. I was providing evidence for this argument.

[TheTrunkDr]

No. BluRay and multicore chips won't be new technology and motion sensing will be cheaper.

The "wow" factor won't be as much of an issue. Look at the jump between a state of the art PS1 and PS2 era game. Now look at the PS2/PS3 jump. It's getting smaller every time. They could make the PS4 40 times more powerful than the PS3 but I don't think most people will me able to tell the difference between 30x and 40x so they'll go for 30x and keep the price down.
Why are you assuming the next playstation will use a Blu-ray player and the Cell processor? There has ALWAYS been upgrades to the media and the processor on every successive generation of every console ever. Why would you assume the PS4 is going to reuse old tech?

[freethinker]

I don't think it will use Cell. I think it will use muticore chips. I'm sticking my neck out a bit when I say BluRay but it's brand new now so it won't be too old in 5 years.

[Guido Jones]

That's assuming HD-DVD doesn't win.

The PS4 will be cheaper because Sony won't be this stupid two times in a row.

[Jason Cross]

There has ALWAYS been upgrades to the media and the processor on every successive generation of every console ever.

Processor yes, media no. The N64 didn't really take a jump in "cartridge tech" over the SNES/Genesis. Of course ROM densities got bigger, and that's a different situation. The Dreamcast GD-ROM was mostly a CD-ROM. In fact many games fit on a CD just fine (and didn't some ship on CD? I forget).

But really, more to the point, the Xbox and 360 both use DVD-ROM. Sure they put a faster DVD-ROM drive in the 360, but that's not a big deal.

Sony bit off more than they should have with blu-ray, and as far as games are concerned it's quite a bit more storage than you really need. A 6x or 8x BD-ROM (or HD-DVD) would fit the bill nicely for the next generation, and it wouldn't surprise me at all to see Sony go that way.

Of course, Sony told people over and over that BD was necessary in this generation because your game storage has to be up to 100x the amount of RAM in your system. And next gen when they're at 25x or less, they'll make liars of themselves. ;)

[freethinker]

That's assuming HD-DVD doesn't win.

The PS4 will be cheaper because Sony won't be this stupid two times in a row.
Even if it does I think they'll use BluRay. They don't have to pay anyone for it.

As for Sony making liars out of themselves in five years. They'll just herald a new age in digital entertainment where procedural rendering and animation means you don't need 100x the storage. Wht lie when you can re-brand.

[DarthPollo26]

While we're on the subject, just how popular is Bluray right now? Is it really looking like it's going to be around for a lasting period of time? Every time I hear about it, it sounds more and more like the VHS-Betamax wars...