By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony - PS4 Development "stretching Sony studios thin"

SnakeDrake on 13 October 2012

I dont think 2 years is enough for me to finish all the games I want to this gen lol.

I'm happy with a 2014 release date :)



 

Bet with gooch_destroyer, he wins if FFX and FFX-2 will be at $40 each for the vita. I win if it dont

Sign up if you want to see God Eater 2 get localized!! https://www.change.org/petitions/shift-inc-bring-god-eater-2-to-north-america-2#share

Around the Network
KBG29 on 14 October 2012
DanneSandin said:
Rafux said:
People forget how much Blu ray increased the PS3 price back in 2006. My prediction is PS4/720 $400 Basic $500 Premium which is affordable.

You crazy bro? People complain about WiiU's price point ($299 and $349), so $499 is out of the question. And they can't afford to lose $100/sold PS4. It'll be $399 at most.

VGKing said:

I'd rather have Sony wait until Holiday 2014 and release a $400 PS4 that is ~8x more powerful than the PS3 instead of releasing one holiday 2013 and at $400 and it being only 4-5x more powerful.

Of course GAMES are the most important part of it, but if next-gen consoles are going to last 7+ years again, I'd rather have one that is completely future proof.  I want to be playing a PS4 game in 2020 and still be wowed by not only the graphics but the gameplay.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding the price. I see no reason why people can not afford a one time purchase of $500 that will last at least 6 years, and possibly longer. However, I think that their is a good chance we will see the subscription deception plan played out by both companies next gen. So a $100's down and $20 a month for 2 years could be another option for those that struggle with money. 

As far as the power increse from this gen to next. I do not see how people are stuck on this idea that these consoles would only be 5x the power of PS3/360. This generation has been at least 2 years longer than any gen before. Look back at every generation before this, these are 4 or 5 years long, and nearly every system had at least 8x the CPU and GPU output, and 8x the amount of Ram. Some have seen as much as 10x or 12x increases in many areas in those much shorter gens. This 4 - 5x increase idea would see the PS3 with 160MB of RAM total, or a theoretical PS4 with 2GB (using PS3's current 512MB). Next gen consoles should be able to outperform the PS3/360 by 10x and be no more than $299 at launch even next year. A $500 console next year or the year after should see 12x - 16x improvments over this generation. 

Finally to the topic at hand. Sony really needs to focus on PS4 development first and foremost. They need to make sure that it has a monster lineup, and keeps momentum up the whole first year. Vita had a great launch, but it has been dead since. They can not let this be the case with PS4. PS3 needs to go out strong with the big three left in development (Last of Us, Beyond Two Souls, and Last Gaurdian?). After that they need to shift all focus from first party devs to PS4. If they want to do ports of some yearly titles, they need to outsource to 3rd parties. On the Vita front, they need major changes in the platform. Vita is to similar to smart phones and tablets, and it does not match those platfroms in overall value. If there is any way possible to make an Android successor to the Xperia Play next year around E3, that is capable of of dual booting the vita, then they may stand a chance. Otherwise, Googleplay, and the App store will destroy them in the mobile gaming market.



Stop hate, let others live the life they were given. Everyone has their problems, and no one should have to feel ashamed for the way they were born. Be proud of who you are, encourage others to be proud of themselves. Learn, research, absorb everything around you. Nothing is meaningless, a purpose is placed on everything no matter how you perceive it. Discover how to love, and share that love with everything that you encounter. Help make existence a beautiful thing.

Kevyn B Grams
10/03/2010 

KBG29 on PSN&XBL

dahuman on 14 October 2012
RVDondaPC said:
If the PS4 supports 4K, then it would make sense that it is a high end spec console like the PS3 was at launch. And as a result will cost more money. But when it does get ready to launch it makes much more sense for Sony to support the PS4 with it's big hitters rather than make another Uncharted/Killzone/Gran Turismo for the PS3. The reason is that the PS3 now has the install base to sell and survive on third party games. GTA V, Modern Warefare 4, Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell and Rainbow 6: Patriots, Fifa 14, Madden 14, Dragon Age III, and many others are more than enough to keep the userbase playing games. But since it's Sony's job to sell hardware and third party publishers to sell games, Sony is going to have to put full support behind the PS4.
Even though Uncharted is my favorite PS3 series, I don't think it would be smart for them to rely on it in the early stages of the PS4. Not because the game wouldn't sell, but because it's a short linear single player game and the multiplayer is a secondary focus to the majority of it's fans. But because there will undoubtedly be not very many games for each user's tastes, they should release games like Gran Turismo or Killzone which users tend to eat up a lot of hours playing and will be satisfied for a longer period of time and will encourage friends to get the same games to play online with them while other games are being developed.

Games I would use to Support PS3 in 2013/14 are mostly well established single player games and casual party games like Uncharted, God Of War, InFamous, Sly Cooper, Ratchet & Clank, MediEvil, Syphon Filter next Quantic Dream game, Singstar, Buzz!, Sports Champions 2, Start the Party 2, Ape Escape, Little bIg Planet 3. Obviously not all those games, but games of that nature.

Games I would use to support the PS4 in 2013/14 are mostly games with online multiplayer and more for the "hardcore" or the niche audience with games like KIllzone 4, Gran Turismo 6, Playstation All Stars, a new Japanese style RPG, a SOCOM/MAG type game, and a few other new IP with elements of multiplayer and a sense of community.

Just because something can output 4k resolution, it doesn't mean it can actually run games that look awesome at that resolution(If current PCs can't do it effectively, then next gen consoles sure as hell won't be able to), it'd most likely be movie playback capabilities if it does 4k res, and also, you can't see a real difference until you get a 80inch+ TV which most people won't have.



DanneSandin on 14 October 2012
KBG29 said:
DanneSandin said:
Rafux said:
People forget how much Blu ray increased the PS3 price back in 2006. My prediction is PS4/720 $400 Basic $500 Premium which is affordable.

You crazy bro? People complain about WiiU's price point ($299 and $349), so $499 is out of the question. And they can't afford to lose $100/sold PS4. It'll be $399 at most.

 

VGKing said:

I'd rather have Sony wait until Holiday 2014 and release a $400 PS4 that is ~8x more powerful than the PS3 instead of releasing one holiday 2013 and at $400 and it being only 4-5x more powerful.

Of course GAMES are the most important part of it, but if next-gen consoles are going to last 7+ years again, I'd rather have one that is completely future proof.  I want to be playing a PS4 game in 2020 and still be wowed by not only the graphics but the gameplay.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding the price. I see no reason why people can not afford a one time purchase of $500 that will last at least 6 years, and possibly longer. However, I think that their is a good chance we will see the subscription deception plan played out by both companies next gen. So a $100's down and $20 a month for 2 years could be another option for those that struggle with money. 

 

As far as the power increse from this gen to next. I do not see how people are stuck on this idea that these consoles would only be 5x the power of PS3/360. This generation has been at least 2 years longer than any gen before. Look back at every generation before this, these are 4 or 5 years long, and nearly every system had at least 8x the CPU and GPU output, and 8x the amount of Ram. Some have seen as much as 10x or 12x increases in many areas in those much shorter gens. This 4 - 5x increase idea would see the PS3 with 160MB of RAM total, or a theoretical PS4 with 2GB (using PS3's current 512MB). Next gen consoles should be able to outperform the PS3/360 by 10x and be no more than $299 at launch even next year. A $500 console next year or the year after should see 12x - 16x improvments over this generation. 

Finally to the topic at hand. Sony really needs to focus on PS4 development first and foremost. They need to make sure that it has a monster lineup, and keeps momentum up the whole first year. Vita had a great launch, but it has been dead since. They can not let this be the case with PS4. PS3 needs to go out strong with the big three left in development (Last of Us, Beyond Two Souls, and Last Gaurdian?). After that they need to shift all focus from first party devs to PS4. If they want to do ports of some yearly titles, they need to outsource to 3rd parties. On the Vita front, they need major changes in the platform. Vita is to similar to smart phones and tablets, and it does not match those platfroms in overall value. If there is any way possible to make an Android successor to the Xperia Play next year around E3, that is capable of of dual booting the vita, then they may stand a chance. Otherwise, Googleplay, and the App store will destroy them in the mobile gaming market.

The bolded sounds like a smart (and kinda obvious) move by Sony. The rest above I don't have a clue about; I know nothing about tech ^^



I'm on Twitter @DanneSandin!

Furthermore, I think VGChartz should add a "Like"-button.

RVDondaPC on 14 October 2012
dahuman said:
RVDondaPC said:
If the PS4 supports 4K, then it would make sense that it is a high end spec console like the PS3 was at launch. And as a result will cost more money. But when it does get ready to launch it makes much more sense for Sony to support the PS4 with it's big hitters rather than make another Uncharted/Killzone/Gran Turismo for the PS3. The reason is that the PS3 now has the install base to sell and survive on third party games. GTA V, Modern Warefare 4, Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell and Rainbow 6: Patriots, Fifa 14, Madden 14, Dragon Age III, and many others are more than enough to keep the userbase playing games. But since it's Sony's job to sell hardware and third party publishers to sell games, Sony is going to have to put full support behind the PS4.
Even though Uncharted is my favorite PS3 series, I don't think it would be smart for them to rely on it in the early stages of the PS4. Not because the game wouldn't sell, but because it's a short linear single player game and the multiplayer is a secondary focus to the majority of it's fans. But because there will undoubtedly be not very many games for each user's tastes, they should release games like Gran Turismo or Killzone which users tend to eat up a lot of hours playing and will be satisfied for a longer period of time and will encourage friends to get the same games to play online with them while other games are being developed.

Games I would use to Support PS3 in 2013/14 are mostly well established single player games and casual party games like Uncharted, God Of War, InFamous, Sly Cooper, Ratchet & Clank, MediEvil, Syphon Filter next Quantic Dream game, Singstar, Buzz!, Sports Champions 2, Start the Party 2, Ape Escape, Little bIg Planet 3. Obviously not all those games, but games of that nature.

Games I would use to support the PS4 in 2013/14 are mostly games with online multiplayer and more for the "hardcore" or the niche audience with games like KIllzone 4, Gran Turismo 6, Playstation All Stars, a new Japanese style RPG, a SOCOM/MAG type game, and a few other new IP with elements of multiplayer and a sense of community.

Just because something can output 4k resolution, it doesn't mean it can actually run games that look awesome at that resolution(If current PCs can't do it effectively, then next gen consoles sure as hell won't be able to), it'd most likely be movie playback capabilities if it does 4k res, and also, you can't see a real difference until you get a 80inch+ TV which most people won't have.

Just like most people didn't have HDTV's when the PS3 was released. Why would they push a tech that only benefits those who have a large expensive HDTV, while completely targeting the exact opposite consumer with it's video game capabilities? I'm not saying it would be able to make games look amazing at 4K, but if it's targeting the high end TV consumer wouldn't it make sense to also target those people with the development of their game capabilities so that their games look good on those televisions? 



Around the Network
dahuman on 15 October 2012
RVDondaPC said:
dahuman said:
RVDondaPC said:
If the PS4 supports 4K, then it would make sense that it is a high end spec console like the PS3 was at launch. And as a result will cost more money. But when it does get ready to launch it makes much more sense for Sony to support the PS4 with it's big hitters rather than make another Uncharted/Killzone/Gran Turismo for the PS3. The reason is that the PS3 now has the install base to sell and survive on third party games. GTA V, Modern Warefare 4, Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell and Rainbow 6: Patriots, Fifa 14, Madden 14, Dragon Age III, and many others are more than enough to keep the userbase playing games. But since it's Sony's job to sell hardware and third party publishers to sell games, Sony is going to have to put full support behind the PS4.
Even though Uncharted is my favorite PS3 series, I don't think it would be smart for them to rely on it in the early stages of the PS4. Not because the game wouldn't sell, but because it's a short linear single player game and the multiplayer is a secondary focus to the majority of it's fans. But because there will undoubtedly be not very many games for each user's tastes, they should release games like Gran Turismo or Killzone which users tend to eat up a lot of hours playing and will be satisfied for a longer period of time and will encourage friends to get the same games to play online with them while other games are being developed.

Games I would use to Support PS3 in 2013/14 are mostly well established single player games and casual party games like Uncharted, God Of War, InFamous, Sly Cooper, Ratchet & Clank, MediEvil, Syphon Filter next Quantic Dream game, Singstar, Buzz!, Sports Champions 2, Start the Party 2, Ape Escape, Little bIg Planet 3. Obviously not all those games, but games of that nature.

Games I would use to support the PS4 in 2013/14 are mostly games with online multiplayer and more for the "hardcore" or the niche audience with games like KIllzone 4, Gran Turismo 6, Playstation All Stars, a new Japanese style RPG, a SOCOM/MAG type game, and a few other new IP with elements of multiplayer and a sense of community.

Just because something can output 4k resolution, it doesn't mean it can actually run games that look awesome at that resolution(If current PCs can't do it effectively, then next gen consoles sure as hell won't be able to), it'd most likely be movie playback capabilities if it does 4k res, and also, you can't see a real difference until you get a 80inch+ TV which most people won't have.

Just like most people didn't have HDTV's when the PS3 was released. Why would they push a tech that only benefits those who have a large expensive HDTV, while completely targeting the exact opposite consumer with it's video game capabilities? I'm not saying it would be able to make games look amazing at 4K, but if it's targeting the high end TV consumer wouldn't it make sense to also target those people with the development of their game capabilities so that their games look good on those televisions? 

Because the hardware isn't good enough to the point where it'd be at a reasonable price point even in 2015+ for a console, let alone 2013 or 2014. It would sell like shit and die, Sony studios make good games in general, I don't want them to fail due to that kind of stupid ass decision. Not to mention, to this day, a lot of high profile games still run in upscaled sub HD on the PS3 and 360, it would be a terrible waste of money both for Sony and us consumers.



DanneSandin on 15 October 2012
dahuman said:
RVDondaPC said:
dahuman said:
RVDondaPC said:
If the PS4 supports 4K, then it would make sense that it is a high end spec console like the PS3 was at launch. And as a result will cost more money. But when it does get ready to launch it makes much more sense for Sony to support the PS4 with it's big hitters rather than make another Uncharted/Killzone/Gran Turismo for the PS3. The reason is that the PS3 now has the install base to sell and survive on third party games. GTA V, Modern Warefare 4, Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell and Rainbow 6: Patriots, Fifa 14, Madden 14, Dragon Age III, and many others are more than enough to keep the userbase playing games. But since it's Sony's job to sell hardware and third party publishers to sell games, Sony is going to have to put full support behind the PS4.
Even though Uncharted is my favorite PS3 series, I don't think it would be smart for them to rely on it in the early stages of the PS4. Not because the game wouldn't sell, but because it's a short linear single player game and the multiplayer is a secondary focus to the majority of it's fans. But because there will undoubtedly be not very many games for each user's tastes, they should release games like Gran Turismo or Killzone which users tend to eat up a lot of hours playing and will be satisfied for a longer period of time and will encourage friends to get the same games to play online with them while other games are being developed.

Games I would use to Support PS3 in 2013/14 are mostly well established single player games and casual party games like Uncharted, God Of War, InFamous, Sly Cooper, Ratchet & Clank, MediEvil, Syphon Filter next Quantic Dream game, Singstar, Buzz!, Sports Champions 2, Start the Party 2, Ape Escape, Little bIg Planet 3. Obviously not all those games, but games of that nature.

Games I would use to support the PS4 in 2013/14 are mostly games with online multiplayer and more for the "hardcore" or the niche audience with games like KIllzone 4, Gran Turismo 6, Playstation All Stars, a new Japanese style RPG, a SOCOM/MAG type game, and a few other new IP with elements of multiplayer and a sense of community.

Just because something can output 4k resolution, it doesn't mean it can actually run games that look awesome at that resolution(If current PCs can't do it effectively, then next gen consoles sure as hell won't be able to), it'd most likely be movie playback capabilities if it does 4k res, and also, you can't see a real difference until you get a 80inch+ TV which most people won't have.

Just like most people didn't have HDTV's when the PS3 was released. Why would they push a tech that only benefits those who have a large expensive HDTV, while completely targeting the exact opposite consumer with it's video game capabilities? I'm not saying it would be able to make games look amazing at 4K, but if it's targeting the high end TV consumer wouldn't it make sense to also target those people with the development of their game capabilities so that their games look good on those televisions? 

Because the hardware isn't good enough to the point where it'd be at a reasonable price point even in 2015+ for a console, let alone 2013 or 2014. It would sell like shit and die, Sony studios make good games in general, I don't want them to fail due to that kind of stupid ass decision. Not to mention, to this day, a lot of high profile games still run in upscaled sub HD on the PS3 and 360, it would be a terrible waste of money both for Sony and us consumers.


word! why make a 4k console when the current gen cant run 1080 properly?



I'm on Twitter @DanneSandin!

Furthermore, I think VGChartz should add a "Like"-button.

sales2099 on 15 October 2012

This article tells me Sony is making PS4 games.....but dev cycles take years for games of next gen caliber. I expect a 2014 PS4 release.

2013 is PS3s swan song with Sly 4, Beyond, GOW, and especially The Last of Us. Sony wouldnt undercut those games with the PS4 in the same year.

Now what really interested me is that Sony isnt learning from a hardware perspective.....highest end specs isnt a good way to win (see PSP, Vita, and PS3).

Sony will have their hands full if they have to play catch up to both Nintendo AND MS.



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

RVDondaPC on 16 October 2012
dahuman said:
RVDondaPC said:
dahuman said:
RVDondaPC said:
If the PS4 supports 4K, then it would make sense that it is a high end spec console like the PS3 was at launch. And as a result will cost more money. But when it does get ready to launch it makes much more sense for Sony to support the PS4 with it's big hitters rather than make another Uncharted/Killzone/Gran Turismo for the PS3. The reason is that the PS3 now has the install base to sell and survive on third party games. GTA V, Modern Warefare 4, Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell and Rainbow 6: Patriots, Fifa 14, Madden 14, Dragon Age III, and many others are more than enough to keep the userbase playing games. But since it's Sony's job to sell hardware and third party publishers to sell games, Sony is going to have to put full support behind the PS4.
Even though Uncharted is my favorite PS3 series, I don't think it would be smart for them to rely on it in the early stages of the PS4. Not because the game wouldn't sell, but because it's a short linear single player game and the multiplayer is a secondary focus to the majority of it's fans. But because there will undoubtedly be not very many games for each user's tastes, they should release games like Gran Turismo or Killzone which users tend to eat up a lot of hours playing and will be satisfied for a longer period of time and will encourage friends to get the same games to play online with them while other games are being developed.

Games I would use to Support PS3 in 2013/14 are mostly well established single player games and casual party games like Uncharted, God Of War, InFamous, Sly Cooper, Ratchet & Clank, MediEvil, Syphon Filter next Quantic Dream game, Singstar, Buzz!, Sports Champions 2, Start the Party 2, Ape Escape, Little bIg Planet 3. Obviously not all those games, but games of that nature.

Games I would use to support the PS4 in 2013/14 are mostly games with online multiplayer and more for the "hardcore" or the niche audience with games like KIllzone 4, Gran Turismo 6, Playstation All Stars, a new Japanese style RPG, a SOCOM/MAG type game, and a few other new IP with elements of multiplayer and a sense of community.

Just because something can output 4k resolution, it doesn't mean it can actually run games that look awesome at that resolution(If current PCs can't do it effectively, then next gen consoles sure as hell won't be able to), it'd most likely be movie playback capabilities if it does 4k res, and also, you can't see a real difference until you get a 80inch+ TV which most people won't have.

Just like most people didn't have HDTV's when the PS3 was released. Why would they push a tech that only benefits those who have a large expensive HDTV, while completely targeting the exact opposite consumer with it's video game capabilities? I'm not saying it would be able to make games look amazing at 4K, but if it's targeting the high end TV consumer wouldn't it make sense to also target those people with the development of their game capabilities so that their games look good on those televisions? 

Because the hardware isn't good enough to the point where it'd be at a reasonable price point even in 2015+ for a console, let alone 2013 or 2014. It would sell like shit and die, Sony studios make good games in general, I don't want them to fail due to that kind of stupid ass decision. Not to mention, to this day, a lot of high profile games still run in upscaled sub HD on the PS3 and 360, it would be a terrible waste of money both for Sony and us consumers.

The article assumes that it will be able to do 4K, not me. Are you arguing with the article or me? I'm saying that if it does 4K, that the console wil have other high end specs for gaming. You're saying that it will be able to run 4K but wont have the hardware for a game to run 4k like the PS3 has the ability to run in 1080P. If they were going to have average specs, then they wouldn't bother making a console that could output at 4k. 



dahuman on 16 October 2012
RVDondaPC said:
dahuman said:
RVDondaPC said:
dahuman said:
RVDondaPC said:
If the PS4 supports 4K, then it would make sense that it is a high end spec console like the PS3 was at launch. And as a result will cost more money. But when it does get ready to launch it makes much more sense for Sony to support the PS4 with it's big hitters rather than make another Uncharted/Killzone/Gran Turismo for the PS3. The reason is that the PS3 now has the install base to sell and survive on third party games. GTA V, Modern Warefare 4, Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell and Rainbow 6: Patriots, Fifa 14, Madden 14, Dragon Age III, and many others are more than enough to keep the userbase playing games. But since it's Sony's job to sell hardware and third party publishers to sell games, Sony is going to have to put full support behind the PS4.
Even though Uncharted is my favorite PS3 series, I don't think it would be smart for them to rely on it in the early stages of the PS4. Not because the game wouldn't sell, but because it's a short linear single player game and the multiplayer is a secondary focus to the majority of it's fans. But because there will undoubtedly be not very many games for each user's tastes, they should release games like Gran Turismo or Killzone which users tend to eat up a lot of hours playing and will be satisfied for a longer period of time and will encourage friends to get the same games to play online with them while other games are being developed.

Games I would use to Support PS3 in 2013/14 are mostly well established single player games and casual party games like Uncharted, God Of War, InFamous, Sly Cooper, Ratchet & Clank, MediEvil, Syphon Filter next Quantic Dream game, Singstar, Buzz!, Sports Champions 2, Start the Party 2, Ape Escape, Little bIg Planet 3. Obviously not all those games, but games of that nature.

Games I would use to support the PS4 in 2013/14 are mostly games with online multiplayer and more for the "hardcore" or the niche audience with games like KIllzone 4, Gran Turismo 6, Playstation All Stars, a new Japanese style RPG, a SOCOM/MAG type game, and a few other new IP with elements of multiplayer and a sense of community.

Just because something can output 4k resolution, it doesn't mean it can actually run games that look awesome at that resolution(If current PCs can't do it effectively, then next gen consoles sure as hell won't be able to), it'd most likely be movie playback capabilities if it does 4k res, and also, you can't see a real difference until you get a 80inch+ TV which most people won't have.

Just like most people didn't have HDTV's when the PS3 was released. Why would they push a tech that only benefits those who have a large expensive HDTV, while completely targeting the exact opposite consumer with it's video game capabilities? I'm not saying it would be able to make games look amazing at 4K, but if it's targeting the high end TV consumer wouldn't it make sense to also target those people with the development of their game capabilities so that their games look good on those televisions? 

Because the hardware isn't good enough to the point where it'd be at a reasonable price point even in 2015+ for a console, let alone 2013 or 2014. It would sell like shit and die, Sony studios make good games in general, I don't want them to fail due to that kind of stupid ass decision. Not to mention, to this day, a lot of high profile games still run in upscaled sub HD on the PS3 and 360, it would be a terrible waste of money both for Sony and us consumers.

The article assumes that it will be able to do 4K, not me. Are you arguing with the article or me? I'm saying that if it does 4K, that the console wil have other high end specs for gaming. You're saying that it will be able to run 4K but wont have the hardware for a game to run 4k like the PS3 has the ability to run in 1080P. If they were going to have average specs, then they wouldn't bother making a console that could output at 4k. 

It'd be for even higher definition videos.