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

Forums - Sony Discussion - Will There Be A PlayStation 5? Sony Is Unsure: 'It's An If'

Soundwave said:
mizzou_guy said:
Doesn't America have the worst internet infrastructure of the 1st world countries? Do you realize how long it's going to take to upgrade all of America's internet offerings so that everyone here can have access to speeds like that? There is no way the US will be ready for a streaming based device like this in the next 5 years. It's fine for things like Netflix, because latency isn't a problem when you're passively viewing something, but if you have to controller-responsive speeds, then it's going to take some time to get there. I don't see Sony or anyone making the move to streaming-only consoles for at least a decade.

It's improving rapidly because Google Fiber has lit a fire under AT&T and Comcast's sorry asses by offering Google Fiber in several markets, that scared the shit out of AT&T and Comast and now they are starting to rapidly offer ultra high speed internet and the competetion is going to lead to an inevitable scenario where it's available everywhere and the price comes down. 

For example, AT&T is offering Gigapower in 38 more US cities this year:

http://www.computerworld.com/article/3012268/networking/atandt-gigapower-fiber-expanding-to-38-more-cities.html

It's actually not unfeasible that all major US cities will have fiber or ultra high speed in 4-5 years time, by 10 years the entire country will have it. 

I see what you're saying, but Google Fiber is only currenlty available in 4 cities with only 7 more cities for sure being expanded into:

https://fiber.google.com/about/

AT&T has many more cities, but if you look at this map, there is A LOT of the country left out, even in the same states where several cities are being developed for fiber:

https://www.att.com/shop/internet/gigapower/coverage-map.html?partner=LinkShare&siteId=je6NUbpObpQ-Tf9WUB0q7MOQZIY_biOCWQ

Comcast also has several cities currently in their fiber market, but again,  A LOT of land in between is not covered:

http://business.comcast.com/about-us/our-network

You have to remember that America is composed of a lot more land than just cities, and there are millions of people whom are not going to be receiving these fiber networks in the near future.  As I said before, I'd guess that it'll be at least a decade before people outside of these major cities can affordably obtain fiber speeds with their home networks.  Console companies are not going to just mark-off non-city residents from their consumer bases and focus on a console that is streaming only, as they would be losing way too much profit by limiting potential customers with that business model.



Around the Network
Soundwave said:
Aeolus451 said:
The PS4 is doing really well, Of course, there's gonna be a PS5.

The question is not that, what Yoshida is talking about is whether or not there *needs* to even be a PS5. 

Google basically has sent into motion a change of events by pushing Google Fiber, they have forced AT&T and Comcast to start offering fiber based or ultra high speed internet. 

Ultra high speed internet allows for any type of game to be streamed easily even at 4K resolution. 

Once this becomes common place .... bye bye physical home consoles. No one is going to pay $400 for hardware when they don't have to anymore. 

Playstation 4 is not the future. Playstation NOW is. 

Physical home consoles may end eventually but that's likely in the far future. Internet speeds are too slow in the majority of the countries where gaming is a thing. So people with a similar opinion as you will have to be very patient.



I could see them just dropping the number and just proceed with calling it PlayStation.



mizzou_guy said:
Soundwave said:

It's improving rapidly because Google Fiber has lit a fire under AT&T and Comcast's sorry asses by offering Google Fiber in several markets, that scared the shit out of AT&T and Comast and now they are starting to rapidly offer ultra high speed internet and the competetion is going to lead to an inevitable scenario where it's available everywhere and the price comes down. 

For example, AT&T is offering Gigapower in 38 more US cities this year:

http://www.computerworld.com/article/3012268/networking/atandt-gigapower-fiber-expanding-to-38-more-cities.html

It's actually not unfeasible that all major US cities will have fiber or ultra high speed in 4-5 years time, by 10 years the entire country will have it. 

I see what you're saying, but Google Fiber is only currenlty available in 4 cities with only 7 more cities for sure being expanded into:

https://fiber.google.com/about/

AT&T has many more cities, but if you look at this map, there is A LOT of the country left out, even in the same states where several cities are being developed for fiber:

https://www.att.com/shop/internet/gigapower/coverage-map.html?partner=LinkShare&siteId=je6NUbpObpQ-Tf9WUB0q7MOQZIY_biOCWQ

Comcast also has several cities currently in their fiber market, but again,  A LOT of land in between is not covered:

http://business.comcast.com/about-us/our-network

You have to remember that America is composed of a lot more land than just cities, and there are millions of people whom are not going to be receiving these fiber networks in the near future.  As I said before, I'd guess that it'll be at least a decade before people outside of these major cities can affordably obtain fiber speeds with their home networks.  Console companies are not going to just mark-off non-city residents from their consumer bases and focus on a console that is streaming only, as they would be losing way too much profit by limiting potential customers with that business model.

This is today though, you have to understand, 2-3 years ago there were like 2-3 cities total ... AT&T is adding 38 cities this year alone. In 5 years pretty much all the country's urban centers will have ultra high speed and probably a lot of rural areas too. 

Even Comcast ... they've found a way to deliver 1 Gigabit internet through *existing* cable infastructure, no fiber network needed. 

So what's happening now is AT&T, Google, and Comcast are all in competetion with each other, which will cause everything to spread even faster. 

Google Fiber was the spark that set off the dynamite. 



Soundwave said:
mizzou_guy said:

I see what you're saying, but Google Fiber is only currenlty available in 4 cities with only 7 more cities for sure being expanded into:

https://fiber.google.com/about/

AT&T has many more cities, but if you look at this map, there is A LOT of the country left out, even in the same states where several cities are being developed for fiber:

https://www.att.com/shop/internet/gigapower/coverage-map.html?partner=LinkShare&siteId=je6NUbpObpQ-Tf9WUB0q7MOQZIY_biOCWQ

Comcast also has several cities currently in their fiber market, but again,  A LOT of land in between is not covered:

http://business.comcast.com/about-us/our-network

You have to remember that America is composed of a lot more land than just cities, and there are millions of people whom are not going to be receiving these fiber networks in the near future.  As I said before, I'd guess that it'll be at least a decade before people outside of these major cities can affordably obtain fiber speeds with their home networks.  Console companies are not going to just mark-off non-city residents from their consumer bases and focus on a console that is streaming only, as they would be losing way too much profit by limiting potential customers with that business model.

This is today though, you have to understand, 2-3 years ago there were like 2-3 cities total ... AT&T is adding 38 cities this year alone. In 5 years pretty much all the country's urban centers will have ultra high speed and probably a lot of rural areas too. 

Even Comcast ... they've found a way to deliver 1 Gigabit internet through *existing* cable infastructure, no fiber network needed. 

So what's happening now is AT&T, Google, and Comcast are all in competetion with each other, which will cause everything to spread even faster. 

Google Fiber was the spark that set off the dynamite. 

You have to understand that it is easier for these companies to develop the new fiber networks in the urban areas than it is in rural or even smaller cities due to return of investment ratios.  Laying fiber is expensive, so the more densily populated an area is, the more financially it makes sense for these companies to offer these services.  Land-wise, urban areas are much smaller than the rest of the country, so that return on investment goes way down once you exit the metro populations.  Perhaps the existing cable option can help, but I still think it's going to be an extremely long time before we see a streaming only offering from anybody, as it would alienate too many users.



Around the Network
mizzou_guy said:
Soundwave said:

This is today though, you have to understand, 2-3 years ago there were like 2-3 cities total ... AT&T is adding 38 cities this year alone. In 5 years pretty much all the country's urban centers will have ultra high speed and probably a lot of rural areas too. 

Even Comcast ... they've found a way to deliver 1 Gigabit internet through *existing* cable infastructure, no fiber network needed. 

So what's happening now is AT&T, Google, and Comcast are all in competetion with each other, which will cause everything to spread even faster. 

Google Fiber was the spark that set off the dynamite. 

You have to understand that it is easier for these companies to develop the new fiber networks in the urban areas than it is in rural or even smaller cities due to return of investment ratios.  Laying fiber is expensive, so the more densily populated an area is, the more financially it makes sense for these companies to offer these services.  Land-wise, urban areas are much smaller than the rest of the country, so that return on investment goes way down once you exit the metro populations.  Perhaps the existing cable option can help, but I still think it's going to be an extremely long time before we see a streaming only offering from anybody, as it would alienate too many users.

In 10 years I think everyone will have it even urban areas. The tech that Comcast has doesn't even require fiber optic it just requires a new modem. 

Japan is spreading quickly, in fact Sony themselves is one of the leading ISPs offering ultra high speed. Yoshida probably knows whats coming. 

Playstation Now was always a test run for the future I think. Maybe there will be a physical PS5, but even that I think will be entirely optional. 

To be honest it's far more lucrative to let people spend that money on games anyway ... with no hardware cost, you could have 3-4 extra games sold per game player, that would be a dramatic boost to attach rates. 



Soundwave said:
mizzou_guy said:

You have to understand that it is easier for these companies to develop the new fiber networks in the urban areas than it is in rural or even smaller cities due to return of investment ratios.  Laying fiber is expensive, so the more densily populated an area is, the more financially it makes sense for these companies to offer these services.  Land-wise, urban areas are much smaller than the rest of the country, so that return on investment goes way down once you exit the metro populations.  Perhaps the existing cable option can help, but I still think it's going to be an extremely long time before we see a streaming only offering from anybody, as it would alienate too many users.

In 10 years I think everyone will have it even urban areas. The tech that Comcast has doesn't even require fiber optic it just requires a new modem. 

Japan is spreading quickly, in fact Sony themselves is one of the leading ISPs offering ultra high speed. Yoshida probably knows whats coming. 

Playstation Now was always a test run for the future I think. Maybe there will be a physical PS5, but even that I think will be entirely optional. 

To be honest it's far more lucrative to let people spend that money on games anyway ... with no hardware cost, you could have 3-4 extra games sold per game player, that would be a dramatic boost to attach rates. 

There is still the cost of servers to support the increased data traffice that these speeds are bringing.  There will have to be an infrastructure update in the places offering these services, even if they are able to use the same lines.

I think you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree.



mizzou_guy said:
Soundwave said:

In 10 years I think everyone will have it even urban areas. The tech that Comcast has doesn't even require fiber optic it just requires a new modem. 

Japan is spreading quickly, in fact Sony themselves is one of the leading ISPs offering ultra high speed. Yoshida probably knows whats coming. 

Playstation Now was always a test run for the future I think. Maybe there will be a physical PS5, but even that I think will be entirely optional. 

To be honest it's far more lucrative to let people spend that money on games anyway ... with no hardware cost, you could have 3-4 extra games sold per game player, that would be a dramatic boost to attach rates. 

There is still the cost of servers to support the increased data traffice that these speeds are bringing.  There will have to be an infrastructure update in the places offering these services, even if they are able to use the same lines.

I think you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree.

The question really is not one of "if" it's simply now a question of "when", and with competetion the rate of adoption is going to accelerate because Comcast won't want AT&T to one up them, Google will try to gain marketshare from both, and the end result will be predictable; each will push hard to gain the most marketshare the most quickly and the end result is in under 10 years most people in the US will have this high speed available to them. 

In that case, the future of the game console becomes quite questionable. Sony knows all this better than anyone, they didn't buy Gaikai and pay almost $400 million for them just for the current Playstation Now service ... they know what's coming down the line. 



SonytendoAmiibo said:

I have the PSVR bundle on pre order. I was barely justifying the $499 cost because it was going to be the OPTIMAL console VR experience. Now I find out that I will get the second string console experience because I have no plans to upgrade to a PS4K. $499 for a lesser experience is too expensive for me.

If Nintendo knocks my socks off at E3 I will probably cancel the PSVR and pre order the NX. 

It is/will be the exact same "experience" that you wanted before.  This is like saying:
"I really liked this restaurant.  But now a fancier restaurant is next door (which I can't afford), so I won't go to my favorite restaurant anymore." (although nothing changed there)
As if you don't actually compare about the experience itself at all, but only the "ranking" of that experience, that you aren't "below somebody/thing else".  
Why not just wear a Burger King crown and call yourself King of Master Race?  Nobody will dispute your position.



They're so confident, they're skipping straight to PlayStation 6.