I think I understood you on the "small reveal" part.
Not sure if another Playstation has been announced in a similar manner before. Perhaps Playstation 2, which was announced on March 1, 1999. Not sure exactly how, but seemingly not in front of an audience/not at an event. Though that doesn't really say much sinceÂ the infrastructure for such announcements were different back then.
However, do you imagine a small third party developer from EU would have knowledge of how Sony would make the announcement?
As for HDD and SSD, I would imagine the abbreviations are the same in every country since that makes it easier for the manufacturers labeling them. At least in my language, the full name of those drives don't necessarilyÂ match up with those abbreviations. But the abbreviations are still HDD and SSD.
Question is if mentioning 'nand flash' would be a fairly safe bet in either scenario?
The PS4 was a small reveal? The event that got its own announcement hype vid? That lasted 2 hrs and gave us basically every bit of info about the device, except for how it looked and what the price was? That in no way was a small reveal. The PS5 was just revealed in an article on a single site, without anything actually concrete, and said article wasn't even announced to be coming out. There is no similarity between the size of both announcements.
It is possible he would know. Remember he said he was aiding a larger company develop a AAA game. Sony has recently has been very communicative with devs, especially when it comes to what they want in a system. It wouldn't surprise me if those talks didn't involve their plans for announcing the console, letting them know when they will be showing off their games. Even with less communication in the past, they were undoubtedly having those talks with publishers.
And, yea, I couldn't find any info on that announcement for the PS2. One article said it was revealed in April, but none said how, and they were all newer ones looking back, nothing from that time. No citation on Wiki. Maybe it didn't even happen. The only concrete info I found was it was unveiled at TGS in Sept of '99.
For all we know, Sony may intend to go for two model tiers as well.
The Pro showed them that theres a market for an enthusiast tier console. So, like MS, they may launch the PS5 and its Pro version right from the gate.
I highly doubt they are going for that approach. Nothing Cerny said hinted at that. And I think Sony likes to keep it simple for their reveals. Let MS have the 3-4 different boxes with different resolutions printed on it and some with drives and some without. It will most likely just confuse your average consumer. While PS5 will be the all-in-one box. No confusion whatsoever.
A lot of this seems to fit very well with what we know.Â
-PSVR2 in 2020 also,reveal with ps5,big resolution boost probably 2560x1440,120hz,220 field of view,eye tracking,wireless,battery life 4-5 hours,headphones integrated,less motion sickenss,no breaker box,much less cable management,much more focus on VR for aaa games,price around 250$
220 fov is nonsense.Â 120 fov would make a lot more sense.Â Â
Not sure if the 2560x1440 is per eye or total.Â I'm assuming total.Â That'd be 1280x1440 per eye.Â Which would make for a modest upgrade.Â Per eye would be a little bizarre of a resolution.Â Â
But total would put it somewhere between the Rift and the Vive Pro.
Eye tracking would be smart.
But I don't see wireless and eye tracking happening at $250.Â Â
For PC, it currently costs about $300 to add wireless to an existing headset.Â Â
Sony isn't going to sell PSVR2 at a loss, not until VR gets big.Â Â
I could see this happening at $400-500, not at $250.Â Â
Raise the resolution, and it'd a fantastic headset for 2020. If it were utilizing foveated rendering, PSVR2 could be relevant for a good while.Â
He did say around $250. I'd take that as a range of $250-$300, with $300 being more realistic. Granted, he may have heard rumblings of price, but no one will know final prices until Sony makes the final decision near launch.
Regardless of 14+ Terraflops being possible, there's nothing to suggest that Sony will aim for that. Everyone's prediction in 2012 that the PS4 would be 3TF's (it was 1.4) was WAY OFF, and this won't by any different. Best case scenario, the PS5 will be 10 TF's - but it'll most likely be around 9.2 TF's.
That's 8 TF's more than the PS4, and 5 TF's more than the Pro.
I don't want the PS5 to have 14+ TF's cuz I don't wanna pay for it, because a 14+ TF PS5 will absolutely exceed a $500 MSRP. 9 TF's is absolutely fine.
Wanting more Terraflops just for the sake of getting as much as we can for the PS5 is f***ing stupid. I'm not willing to pay the price for what that'll entail, and neither will the consumer market. They tried that with PS3 - and it failed. Despite the PC gaming minority mindset; not everyone cares about specs and top of the line hardware.
Anything exceeding $450 MSRP for the PS5 will be a bad move.
The PS4 is actually 1.84 Tflops. I think Sony is going to aim higher than the Stadia, with some other insiders saying that both them and MS are. The lowest I'm expecting is ~11 Tflops, but I think using the same 56 CUs that Stadia does will apparently net them ~13 Tflops, if the leaked chip is for the PS5. Going less much less than Stadia, and apparently even more drastically less than the XBox Anaconda, would be a PR disaster.
You have to remember, Sony is paying for the same chip, no matter how powerful it is. Yes, disabling CUs will give them higher yields when some are defective, so I don't expect them to use all 64. I think going with 56, disabling 8 (unless AMD has overcome the 64 CUs limitation), should give them high enough yields so they don't eat so much of the cost in bad chips.
Even with all those features and that power, Sony is going to be selling at a loss, like they always do. They won't be taking on the loss of the PS3, ~$300 per console, but they also won't take a little as the PS4, ~$50 or so, since they are in a much better position this time around. I wouldn't be surprised to see them take a ~$100-$150 loss on the system, making up for it in SW and Plus sales, while prices fall quickly on the parts in the coming years. I think it's also the reason they decided to hold off until 2020. It allows for one more year of price reductions and further perfecting of the tech used in making the chipset. So, the system would be $450, but would cost them $550-$600 to make.
On a final note, this is nothing like the PS3. Sure, the PS3 launched for $500 as its entry price, but that was in 2006, when $500 was more like $600+. And while it was more powerful than its competition, which was $200 cheaper, it wasn't illustrated until a year or more later. The architecture was so foreign to devs that it took them awhile to get the hang of developing on it, leading to 3rd party games actually looking better on the much cheaper and slightly less powerful system. The PS5 will be the same x86 architecture that the PS4 was built on, so the results of a powerful chipset won't take much time to speak for themselves.