Forums - Sony Discussion - John Kodera: “PS4 Is Entering The Final Stages Of It’s Life-Cycle.”

thismeintiel said:
Shadow1980 said:
2020 and 2021 are both plausible. 2021 does give them more time to get an affordable system that is as powerful as possible, and if the PS4 isn't massively down YoY next year, the sales situation will allow them to put off the PS5's release. No sense in releasing a new system when your current one is still doing well, after all.

2019 however is too early, and 2022 too late.

Except Sony always releases their systems when their predecessor is still hot. It's how you maintain momentum. PS3 to PS4 is the only exception, mainly because they stretched out the gen to recoup early losses. The PS4 did not have that problem. 

PS3 was still hot, just past the peak.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Around the Network

2021 seems late. nov 2020 feels right.

that was most likely said to not hamper sales of ps4 which are doing very well currently. it is still a business first.

i will be out at midnight waiting to pick up my ps5 as i was the ps4.



 

thismeintiel said:
Shadow1980 said:
2020 and 2021 are both plausible. 2021 does give them more time to get an affordable system that is as powerful as possible, and if the PS4 isn't massively down YoY next year, the sales situation will allow them to put off the PS5's release. No sense in releasing a new system when your current one is still doing well, after all.

2019 however is too early, and 2022 too late.

Except Sony always releases their systems when their predecessor is still hot. It's how you maintain momentum. PS3 to PS4 is the only exception, mainly because they stretched out the gen to recoup early losses. The PS4 did not have that problem. 

Yes and no. All of their systems were past peak sales upon being replaced:

 

Granted, the PS2 was still doing decently when the PS3 came out, but it was replaced four years after its peak. The PS1 was replaced sooner after its peak, and it was still doing well when the PS2 was announced, but then again it was starting to slow down. Sony might have been able to hold off on the PS2 for another year. Meanwhile, the PS3 was starting to decline fast after 2011. It (and the 360 as well) had a belated peak compared to historical norms, but that also meant that by time it passed its peak, it had already reached the majority of its potential audience, and Sony was rapidly running out of new customers. As for the PS4, it's still doing well and arguably hasn't quite passed its peak yet. Unless Sony refuses to issue another permanent price cut, the PS4 might not start to enter a clear terminal decline until next year.

Also, it's worth pointing out that the PS1 & PS2 existed at a time when the tech was progressing at a proportionally much higher rate. I believe last generation was as long as it was on purpose because of the rate of technological slowdown. Imagine if the PS4 had come out in 2011 instead of 2013. It'd be either much weaker, or much more expensive. I think it behooves Sony (and MS) to wait a bit longer and not rush the transition to next-gen. The upgrade needs to be worth it. While the PS4 might be officially entering the last phase of its life, I don't think that means that the PS5 is imminent. I simply don't see it coming out any earlier than 2020.



Shadow1980 said:
thismeintiel said:

Except Sony always releases their systems when their predecessor is still hot. It's how you maintain momentum. PS3 to PS4 is the only exception, mainly because they stretched out the gen to recoup early losses. The PS4 did not have that problem. 

Yes and no. All of their systems were past peak sales upon being replaced:

 

Granted, the PS2 was still doing decently when the PS3 came out, but it was replaced four years after its peak. The PS1 was replaced sooner after its peak, and it was still doing well when the PS2 was announced, but then again it was starting to slow down. Sony might have been able to hold off on the PS2 for another year. Meanwhile, the PS3 was starting to decline fast after 2011. It (and the 360 as well) had a belated peak compared to historical norms, but that also meant that by time it passed its peak, it had already reached the majority of its potential audience, and Sony was rapidly running out of new customers. As for the PS4, it's still doing well and arguably hasn't quite passed its peak yet. Unless Sony refuses to issue another permanent price cut, the PS4 might not start to enter a clear terminal decline until next year.

Also, it's worth pointing out that the PS1 & PS2 existed at a time when the tech was progressing at a proportionally much higher rate. I believe last generation was as long as it was on purpose because of the rate of technological slowdown. Imagine if the PS4 had come out in 2011 instead of 2013. It'd be either much weaker, or much more expensive. I think it behooves Sony (and MS) to wait a bit longer and not rush the transition to next-gen. The upgrade needs to be worth it. While the PS4 might be officially entering the last phase of its life, I don't think that means that the PS5 is imminent. I simply don't see it coming out any earlier than 2020.

Not only a question of technology being slower, but reducing benefits that also makes the need for the jump to be bigger to be noticeable and worthy.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

“We will use the next three years to prepare the next step, to crouch down so that we can jump higher in the future,” Kodera said, as reported by the Wall Street Journal. Kodera’s comments came in an interview with the press today, following a presentation to investors yesterday in which he said that the PlayStation 4 is heading into the end of its life cycle.



Around the Network
DonFerrari said:

Not only a question of technology being slower, but reducing benefits that also makes the need for the jump to be bigger to be noticeable and worthy.

Two issues that go hand in hand. Five years used to be more than enough to give us a massive leap in technology. We went from the SNES in 1991 to the N64 in 1996. The GameCube's GPU was rated at least 47 times more powerful than the N64's. The PS3 was a comparably large increase over the PS2. Meanwhile, the PS4 & XBO weren't even a full order of magnitude more powerful than the PS3 & 360 despite a seven year gap. Honestly, the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X are how powerful the PS4 & XBO should have been at launch, but couldn't because they'd be prohibitively expensive in 2013. That was a ten-year gap between the PS3 and the PS4 Pro.

It's taking longer to get the kind of power increases we used to see in previous generations. And then there's the diminishing returns. While there's still a ton of advancement that can be done with game graphics, the leap from the 360 to X1X doesn't yield the same qualitative increase in graphics that we saw in the jump from the PS2 & Xbox to the PS3 & 360, which in turn wasn't quite the jump we saw from the PS1 & N64 to the PS2 & GameCube. It takes a significant quantitative increase in specs to yield a quantitative increase sufficient to justify the upgrade to a new generation. This is especially the case today with the push for 4K and and 60 fps as standards, as those things come at a price. If we stuck with 1080p30 as the standard, we'd see better graphical results.

The slowdown in tech advancement combined with diminishing returns is why last generation was so long. And that's why this generation needs to be at least as long. The PS4 & XBO still have the potential to generate steady sales well into 2019. We've seen YoY growth for the XBO thanks to the cut to $230, and, especially given how well the PS4 did in November, Sony could also generate significant growth for it as well by cutting the PS4 to at least $250. I don't want to see next-gen rushed, and I absolutely do not mind waiting until 2021 for next-gen consoles. I also wouldn't mind paying $500 at launch, either. Assuming 2% annual inflation, by Nov. 2021 the PS4's inflation adjusted launch price will be upwards of $460, and it was pretty damn reasonable price at the time (on par with the PS2 & Xbox, not too far ahead of the SNES & Genesis). I think the market will be ready for a $500 launch price by 2021, especially if the technological leap is worth it.



Shadow1980 said:
DonFerrari said:

Not only a question of technology being slower, but reducing benefits that also makes the need for the jump to be bigger to be noticeable and worthy.

Two issues that go hand in hand. Five years used to be more than enough to give us a massive leap in technology. We went from the SNES in 1991 to the N64 in 1996. The GameCube's GPU was rated at least 47 times more powerful than the N64's. The PS3 was a comparably large increase over the PS2. Meanwhile, the PS4 & XBO weren't even a full order of magnitude more powerful than the PS3 & 360 despite a seven year gap. Honestly, the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X are how powerful the PS4 & XBO should have been at launch, but couldn't because they'd be prohibitively expensive in 2013. That was a ten-year gap between the PS3 and the PS4 Pro.

It's taking longer to get the kind of power increases we used to see in previous generations. And then there's the diminishing returns. While there's still a ton of advancement that can be done with game graphics, the leap from the 360 to X1X doesn't yield the same qualitative increase in graphics that we saw in the jump from the PS2 & Xbox to the PS3 & 360, which in turn wasn't quite the jump we saw from the PS1 & N64 to the PS2 & GameCube. It takes a significant quantitative increase in specs to yield a quantitative increase sufficient to justify the upgrade to a new generation. This is especially the case today with the push for 4K and and 60 fps as standards, as those things come at a price. If we stuck with 1080p30 as the standard, we'd see better graphical results.

The slowdown in tech advancement combined with diminishing returns is why last generation was so long. And that's why this generation needs to be at least as long. The PS4 & XBO still have the potential to generate steady sales well into 2019. We've seen YoY growth for the XBO thanks to the cut to $230, and, especially given how well the PS4 did in November, Sony could also generate significant growth for it as well by cutting the PS4 to at least $250. I don't want to see next-gen rushed, and I absolutely do not mind waiting until 2021 for next-gen consoles. I also wouldn't mind paying $500 at launch, either. Assuming 2% annual inflation, by Nov. 2021 the PS4's inflation adjusted launch price will be upwards of $460, and it was pretty damn reasonable price at the time (on par with the PS2 & Xbox, not too far ahead of the SNES & Genesis). I think the market will be ready for a $500 launch price by 2021, especially if the technological leap is worth it.

Agreeing with all points posed with just the inclusion that as long as good games keep coming I'm satisfied on the gen not changing.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Why am I not surprised you guys don´t understand the implications of his statements?
You are rambling about GPU/CPU lithography, display resolution, and frame rate when that is the least of Sony´s concerns going next generation.

I don´t know if reports are giving only a small part of his declarations and focusing on this subject. But if those are representative, it is exactly the same thing the EA president said a few weeks ago, causing a lot of rage and youtube videos "debunking" him.

Sony wants live services and online subscription as their main revenue source.

Of course, they would never admit scaling down single play expansive adventures like Horizon, BUT, when you are an executive you have to answer to your stockholders asking:

"How games like Fortnight, PUG, Overwatch can make so much money and we get only a fraction of their profits in our platform?"



Dark_Feanor said:
Why am I not surprised you guys don´t understand the implications of his statements?
You are rambling about GPU/CPU lithography, display resolution, and frame rate when that is the least of Sony´s concerns going next generation.

I don´t know if reports are giving only a small part of his declarations and focusing on this subject. But if those are representative, it is exactly the same thing the EA president said a few weeks ago, causing a lot of rage and youtube videos "debunking" him.

Sony wants live services and online subscription as their main revenue source.

Of course, they would never admit scaling down single play expansive adventures like Horizon, BUT, when you are an executive you have to answer to your stockholders asking:

"How games like Fortnight, PUG, Overwatch can make so much money and we get only a fraction of their profits in our platform?"

It is one interpretation, but when Sony keep putting more and more 1st party because themselves said 3rd parties already cover MP and several genres besides SP with cinematics that they focus I don't think Sony strategy to keep increasing online revenue is similar to what you may be thinking on the "never admitting".



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Dark_Feanor said:
Why am I not surprised you guys don´t understand the implications of his statements?
You are rambling about GPU/CPU lithography, display resolution, and frame rate when that is the least of Sony´s concerns going next generation.

I don´t know if reports are giving only a small part of his declarations and focusing on this subject. But if those are representative, it is exactly the same thing the EA president said a few weeks ago, causing a lot of rage and youtube videos "debunking" him.

Sony wants live services and online subscription as their main revenue source.

Of course, they would never admit scaling down single play expansive adventures like Horizon, BUT, when you are an executive you have to answer to your stockholders asking:

"How games like Fortnight, PUG, Overwatch can make so much money and we get only a fraction of their profits in our platform?"

Considering the MP of all those games is tied to a PS+ subscription paid to them (Sony), I don't think they would made such a deal out of it.