Can Sony afford to have the most powerful console next-gen? *spawn

[Billy Idol]

Part of the problem is that the "factual" information posted on forums is frequently very wrong. Example, I've read countless times about how high poly count ps3 exclusive games are with numbers posted all over the place, yet having seen gpad graphics dumps from said games I can tell you that people are frequently very wrong. Or, people thinking that because 1st party Sony devs are not publically complaining about the hardware means they must be content with it, when having privately spoken to many a 1st party Sony dev I can tell you that you would be utterly shocked as to what many really think of the ps3's hardware.

Naturally people can't speak publically about the graphics dumps we've seen, nor are we about to post publically about what 1st party devs tell us over drinks. So incorrect information continues to get posted on forums, then repeated ad nauseum, and hence false information ends up becoming fact. In the end we're left with people quoting wrong information as fact, and many of us simply give up and stop posting. That's because once the myth has become reality, there is no point into trying to fight it.

I can only imagen how frustrating this must be! Internets and forum offer so much so called educated opinions, that it is difficult for outsiders like me to keep track and filter the stuff that counts. The only thing comparable might be, when I see those science shows in TV...in this case I am often so shocked about the nonsense broadcasted that I just think: not even tying to fight :- )

I really wonder if Sony 1st party devs are allowed to help designing the next Playstation?

I wonder, if there is a drawback asking software devs about a hardware design? In case of Sony, one would even expect that a dedicated tec team already prepares future iterations of some inhouse game engines to test and validate different hardware concepts to get a better understanding of what is needed on a hardware level.

 

[liolio]

Lets flip this on its head


The Saturn launched first but the ps1 was more powerful and was able to kill it before the n64 came out 18 months later.

The dreamcast came out first by a year but the ps2 was more powerful and was able to kill it before the xbox came out a year later
.

Well it is not as simple the Saturn was in some regard more powerful but not a beast at 3d rendering.
The dreamcast were doing not that bad (no matter the shortage in it early life), Sega was not in situation to sustain it.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

I can only imagen how frustrating this must be! Internets and forum offer so much so called educated opinions, that it is difficult for outsiders like me to keep track and filter the stuff that counts. The only thing comparable might be, when I see those science shows in TV...in this case I am often so shocked about the nonsense broadcasted that I just think: not even tying to fight :- )

I really wonder if Sony 1st party devs are allowed to help designing the next Playstation?

I wonder, if there is a drawback asking software devs about a hardware design? In case of Sony, one would even expect that a dedicated tec team already prepares future iterations of some inhouse game engines to test and validate different hardware concepts to get a better understanding of what is needed on a hardware level.

I'm sure Sony will have/had talks with devs to ask what they expect out of next gen, what their preferences would be (eg bigger gpu and smaller cpu or visa versa) etc. Afteral they have to work with the hardware so I'd be strange not to atleast be interested in their opinions/views. Two heads know more than one so why not ask? It certainly won't hurt.

 

[Lucid_Dreamer]

Well Sony yields problem mostly affected their financial statements, MSFT sold a pretty much defective system to have a head start on SOny. Corporation are not people, are not good or evil, etc. those on those very fact it is not really disputable which committed the greatest deed

In order for that statement to be true, corporations would need to be able to do business without people. The last time I checked, that is not possible. People run corporations. People can be thought of as good or evil. Therefore, corporations can be thought of as good or evil. It depends on the calls made by the people in charge of the corporation's direction.

 

[JasonLD]

I can only imagen how frustrating this must be! Internets and forum offer so much so called educated opinions, that it is difficult for outsiders like me to keep track and filter the stuff that counts. The only thing comparable might be, when I see those science shows in TV...in this case I am often so shocked about the nonsense broadcasted that I just think: not even tying to fight :- )

I really wonder if Sony 1st party devs are allowed to help designing the next Playstation?

I wonder, if there is a drawback asking software devs about a hardware design? In case of Sony, one would even expect that a dedicated tec team already prepares future iterations of some inhouse game engines to test and validate different hardware concepts to get a better understanding of what is needed on a hardware level.

Since software developers rely more on third party engines such as UE, I think Sony had considerable inputs from third party engine developers on hardware design.
Sony used to have "if we build it, they will come" sort of mentality until PS3 but as development costs has skyrocketed, companies would not want to invest too much time on optimizing codes on some exotic brand-new architecture.
It is kind of boring that there is no Emotion Engine or Cell kind of hype surrounding Sony's console, but going with x86 seems like a step in the right direction.

 

[liolio]

In order for that statement to be true, corporations would need to be able to do business without people. The last time I checked, that is not possible. People run corporations. People can be thought of as good or evil. Therefore, corporations can be thought of as good or evil. It depends on the calls made by the people in charge of the corporation's direction.

Sorry but that is a sophistic way of.thinking and it's incorrect.
Big corporations have their corporate cultures, lot of decisios are taken by committee, some people.goes other leaves without that much of effect on the overall policies.
I think I won't no longer answer yiur posts, between the ps3 devs are the cleverest and the implied Msft is evil, ther isn't that much to discuss.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

In order for that statement to be true, corporations would need to be able to do business without people. The last time I checked, that is not possible. People run corporations. People can be thought of as good or evil. Therefore, corporations can be thought of as good or evil. It depends on the calls made by the people in charge of the corporation's direction.

In that case, Microsoft must have been one of the best and most good of corporations back in the 1990's as they were headed by one of the world's leading philanthropists, Bill Gates. It's very rare for a CEO or former CEO of his stature to do as much as he does or dedicate as much time as he does to help the people of the world. And to think I used to hate the man.

But no. At the end of the day. Microsoft is the same as Google is the same as Sony is the same as Samsung is the same as BMW is the same as...well you get the point. All corporations are the same. They differ only in how well they do their job (making money) and how well they plan for the future (cash in the bank in case of economic slumps, R&D, etc.).

No, corporations are either well run (give consumers what they want and make tons of cash) or they aren't well run (don't give the consumers what they want and don't make money). But certainly not good or evil.

Regards,
SB

 

[Nesh]

No, corporations are either well run (give consumers what they want and make tons of cash) or they aren't well run (don't give the consumers what they want and don't make money). But certainly not good or evil.

Regards,
SB

We are drifting to off topic discussion but I couldnt resist

Thats the illusion they sell us since they own the media and the economy.. Especially that stupid idea that profits give only positive motive to companies to always provide the best products at best prices. Corporations are possible to be described as being evil and yes they can make a load of cash by making us consumers falsely believe that what they offer is the best available option while the best alternative options are stopped from getting into our hands simply because they equal less profits and more independence for the people if they ever become available.

Many companies have lobbying power. They have involvement into politics. They have control over the media. And many have convinced that their products are great and helpful while they have been cause of pain and misery. Monsanto being one of those immoral lobbying mega monsters with influence over the media and protected by politicians. Their products are unhealthy, they have been caught many times faking research with bribed researchers (and firing researchers who have tested their products and found they have implications in health and the environment), using their employees to pretend they were real doctors and researchers, they have ruined economically agriculturists, they are causing environmental destruction, and they have been lobbying against labeling their products as GMO. Many have tried to take them to court by they have judges that have ties to Monsanto hence nobody can touch them. That particular company was the company that was producing Agent Orange. A poison used by the US Army during the Vietnam which caused unbelievable environmental destruction with consequences lasting even today including teratogenesis . But their CEO was awarded CEO of the Year in 2010, the government has appointed ex-Monsanto staff in FDA, and the media supports them as the best contributors in food supply.

And thats just one example

 

[DoctorFouad]

As has been stated on various chat forums across the net many times,

The most powerful console for each particular generation since the 90's has never been the most powerful.
-PS1 wasn't the most powerful during the 5th gen
-PS2 wasn't the most powerful during the 6th gen.
-Obviously, or perhaps not as obvious to everyone...the Wii won the 7th gen.


If having the most powerful console were the biggest factor, then the PS3 wouldn't still be trailing in 3rd place.

you mean the most successful console of each generation wasent the most powerful ?

drawing conclusions about the importance historically of the performance of consoles for commercial success based on the answer of your question is simply a fallacy, an internet myth (unfortunately very common fallacy in this forum).

your question is irrelevant, because it is very hard for a console manufacturer to compete in hardware performance with a console that is released 1 year later or 2 years later from theirs....(how do you want the ps1 to be more powerful in most areas with N64 released 18 months later ? or how do you want the ps2 to compete with xbox1 released almost 2 years later ?)

let me ask you another more relevant question : How many of the most successful consoles of each generation, were also the most powerful THE FIRST MONTHS OF THEIR RELEASE (lets say for half a year as a minimum) ?

now the answer for that question would absolutely change your conclusions about the importance of harwdare performance.

these are the most powerful consoles for at least the first 6 months of their commercial release :
- NES (july 1983)
- SNES (november 1990)
- PS1 (december 1994)
- PS2 (march 2000)
- XBOX360 (november 2005)

guess whom was also the most commercially successful console of its generation ?

I let you ddraw now your own conclusions...

 

[Exophase]

let me ask you another more relevant question : How many of the most successful consoles of each generation, were also the most powerful THE FIRST MONTHS OF THEIR RELEASE (lets say for half a year as a minimum) ?

Wii is of course the notable exception to this claim. On the flip side, how many unsuccessful consoles were not the most powerful when they were released? Of course "most powerful" can be contentious when only one part of the system is weaker than another. SNES wasn't leading anything in CPU power. Saturn is better suited than PS1 at a lot of tasks. Same is true to an extent for Dreamcast vs PS2. XBox 360 shouldn't actually be on your list because it isn't the most successful of its generation (and it led its nearest predecessor by what, 4 years?)

No one's claiming that having the strongest console means you can't win the generation, just that it isn't necessary, ie you can win even if a competitor is stronger. Relative release dates might have an impact on that since we've generally seen the first console of a generation not take the crown, but that could easily be down to correlation of many other factors too. Truth is we have so few datapoints you can't really draw hard statistical conclusions.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

So incorrect information continues to get posted on forums, then repeated ad nauseum, and hence false information ends up becoming fact. In the end we're left with people quoting wrong information as fact, and many of us simply give up and stop posting. That's because once the myth has become reality, there is no point into trying to fight it.

Some people here believed that every PS3 game was running at 1080p up to the first COD BLOPS game. They were honestly surprised when I told them that the game was actually running at 960*540. They never even suspected it, and they were using quite big TVs.

 

[DoctorFouad]

Wii is of course the notable exception to this claim. On the flip side, how many unsuccessful consoles were not the most powerful when they were released? Of course "most powerful" can be contentious when only one part of the system is weaker than another. SNES wasn't leading anything in CPU power. Saturn is better suited than PS1 at a lot of tasks. Same is true to an extent for Dreamcast vs PS2. XBox 360 shouldn't actually be on your list because it isn't the most successful of its generation (and it led its nearest predecessor by what, 4 years?)

No one's claiming that having the strongest console means you can't win the generation, just that it isn't necessary, ie you can win even if a competitor is stronger. Relative release dates might have an impact on that since we've generally seen the first console of a generation not take the crown, but that could easily be down to correlation of many other factors too. Truth is we have so few datapoints you can't really draw hard statistical conclusions.

apparently you didnt understand the point of my previous post. I didnt say : those who have the strongest consoles the first 6 months of their release always win the generation (Wii example), neither did I say that no strong console ever fails commercially (dreamcast example).

What i did say was that it is wrong to draw any conclusions regarding the importance of performance for consoles just by saying that the most successful consoles arent the strongest of their generation. thats a fallacy, the right question to ask is : which are the consoles that were considered the strongest hardware wise their first months of release and end up winning the generation ? the answer to my question is : the majority of consoles that did win commercially their generation were also the strongest consoles hardware wise the first months of their release.

what is important for harwdare performance is to be considered the strongest the first months of commercial release, not to stay the strongest during years even if your competitor release a new console after 2 years...thats irrelevant and a moot point.

historically, that should give a solid indication that harwdare performance matters, it is very rare and an exception for a weak console to win its generation, actually the only example I have in mind right now is nintendo Wii, which is the exception confirming the rule...

also i am not saying that history should repeat itself, of course thats another issue, what I am saying is that historically we can derive some solid tendencies, it is up to the market supply and demand and subjective preferences of consumers to determine the next winner of the next generation...but definitely if we are going with history tendencies than hardware performance matters for consumers. Its not a coincidence that the majority of consoles which won their generation were also considered the strongest hardware wise during their first months of commercial release. in other words, if a manufacturer want to release a relatively weak console hardware wise, this manufacturer should have really very solid arguments and services to convince its consumers to buy his relatively weak hardware (for example cheaper console to buy, better software for consumers...etc) or else he would be in real trouble. (i think wiiu will face this trouble next year)

Thats why I dont believe that sony would go with a weaker hardware for its ps4 than microsoft's xboxnext. as some have said it : SONY CANT AFFORD A WEAKER HARDWARE. it seem paradoxical, but having an image of a weaker hardware means sony would be obliged to sell its console at a lesser price than xboxnext, with a lot of pressure to release better games in the short run. and thats very risky. (ps3 has always been more expansive to buy than xboxnext, and sony best first party games came really late to the party, GT5 and uncharted 2 released after 2 years is an example)

 

[Squilliam]

“Fun Industry but Very Poor Executive Management”
Former Senior Manager in Foster City, CA – Reviewed 5 weeks ago

Pros – Great product, friendly co-workers, fun industry. I loved work here at PlayStation, mostly because of the industry. I learned a lot of what NOT to do!

Cons – Executive Mgmt is clueless. PS Move, 3D and PS Vita are all failures. PS Mobile will be the next failure. I don't have a lot of confidence that Orbis will sell well as I don't see it selling to the casual audience. They simply don't need it. The company is quickly losing support of their 3rd Party Publishers.

Advice to Senior Management – Improve marketing and focus on your core gamer. Repair the relationship with 3rd Party Publishers. Stop investing in low margin areas where you can't compete, like casual games. Focus on the core gamer. That is your market!

http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Employee-Review-Sony-PlayStation-RVW2129998.htm

Could this be an interesting clue as to the future of Playstation?

 

[kagemaru]

Thats why I dont believe that sony would go with a weaker hardware for its ps4 than microsoft's xboxnext. as some have said it : SONY CANT AFFORD A WEAKER HARDWARE. it seem paradoxical, but having an image of a weaker hardware means sony would be obliged to sell its console at a lesser price than xboxnext, with a lot of pressure to release better games in the short run. and thats very risky. (ps3 has always been more expansive to buy than xboxnext, and sony best first party games came really late to the party, GT5 and uncharted 2 released after 2 years is an example)

This doesn't really make sense given their history and the general consumers ignorance to specs IMO.

They will care whether or not the next big thing (like CoD this Gen) is on the system or if standard features are supported. Do this, price, and market the console right, and the consumers won't care (or even know) if the ps4 is weaker.

 

[Exophase]

apparently you didnt understand the point of my previous post. I didnt say : those who have the strongest consoles the first 6 months of their release always win the generation (Wii example), neither did I say that no strong console ever fails commercially (dreamcast example).

Well you said this:

let me ask you another more relevant question : How many of the most successful consoles of each generation, were also the most powerful THE FIRST MONTHS OF THEIR RELEASE (lets say for half a year as a minimum) ?

Then you went on to list a console that wasn't the most successful. Did I claim you said that those with the strongest consoles in the first 6 months win? No, I didn't. But But I'm not sure why you brought it up.

What i did say was that it is wrong to draw any conclusions regarding the importance of performance for consoles just by saying that the most successful consoles arent the strongest of their generation. thats a fallacy,

The point has only ever been to show that you don't have to have the best hardware to win, even if you aren't Nintendo. What exactly is the fallacy with that?

the right question to ask is : which are the consoles that were considered the strongest hardware wise their first months of release and end up winning the generation ? the answer to my question is : the majority of consoles that did win commercially their generation were also the strongest consoles hardware wise the first months of their release.

Most consoles (both the ones that won and the ones that didn't) are strongest when they come out unless they're released very shortly after another console. How do you draw a connection using an attribute that applies to almost every point in your data set?

Like you said, if you're releasing a console substantially later than someone else it's very easy for you to do a better console, unless you're spending much less to make it (and perhaps are charging much less for it). What we have with Wii is the only real example of a much newer console also being much weaker in all regards but still winning, but I'm hesitant to use Wii as a universal example given th

I really think this whole thing is too complex to draw any conclusions about what Sony must do to have a chance. What the history shows is either what they don't necessarily have to do or too little information to draw a conclusion either way. Little of what they must do.

what is important for harwdare performance is to be considered the strongest the first months of commercial release, not to stay the strongest during years even if your competitor release a new console after 2 years...thats irrelevant and a moot point.

Unfortunately you don't have a strong example by contradiction where newer but weaker hardware fails. What you do have is hardware that won in spite of being expected to fall short of highly anticipated later hardware (PS1 vs N64), and not having any kind of clear consensus in its early life that it's really the "most powerful" (PS1 vs Saturn, where on paper Saturn looks stronger and the early gen games didn't really give a clear advantage to either side).

If we're going to look at anything at all I think there's way more relevance in the last generation or two than what happened 15+ years ago. XBox 360 and PS3 are pretty much neck and neck despite being very different designs with pointed advantages and disadvantages. They were practically operating in a separate market from Nintendo. Things were not really like they used to be. Sony was also not doing very well until they managed to reduce the PS3's price substantially.

 

[Nesh]

http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Employee-Review-Sony-PlayStation-RVW2129998.htm

Could this be an interesting clue as to the future of Playstation?

I was checking some other reviews and it doesnt look good

 

[DJ12]

Wouldn't suprise me if someone from Kotaku posted it themselves, they have major problems with the Playstation brand, if not they have certainly been looking very hard for something negative.

For all we know, if genuine, the guy could've been sacked for stealing and is trying to get revenge.

 

[Squilliam]

I was checking some other reviews and it doesnt look good

Yeah I checked a few myself after reading that one. It could be a result of 'stealth layoffs' as one of the people mentioned. If you show people the door involuntarily you'll tend to get a lot of negative reviews out of them. They're releasing a lot of software towards the start of next year, perhaps it is a strategy to move consoles by getting people hooked on Playstation 3 exclusives without making losses on early software sales as without a significant userbase their style of flashy AAA blockbuster is probably unsustainable.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

You mean with regards to ps4 launch games? I don't think that would be such a big issue. Of course sony would rather make money than lose it but what sells a console, especially a new one, is games. If sony can launch with one or two blockbusters they might lose money on that, but it would be about the best marketing that you can have for your new console. ''Look at these two awsome games, thats why you want a ps4!''. That kind of PR plus the additional sales of consoles will, in the long run, probably be worth much more than those few tens of millions they might lose because of a small initial userbase.

 

[Squilliam]

They have about four blockbuster games coming out early next year which is strange given the fact that they were pretty light on the big stuff this year and they are pretty close to the next generation which makes me wonder why they simply weren't pushed back. The only real reason I can think of is that Sony needs the cashflow and revenue from those titles more than they need to push new content for the PS4.