Thread spawned.
Should next-gen extend PC-like functionality of consoles? *spawn
- Thread starter sunscar
- Start date
I will actually disagree with that statement; with the huge rise in social networking I believe it shows what the future of the WEB will be. For that future you don't need a 4GHZ Quad Core PC with 4GB DDR3 and a super fast graphics card. The PS3 (heck even the Wii) is well equiped enough to twitter, facebook and myspace with and look at that..they can even stream video too.
I mean when you think about it what can you get from the web that you HAVE to have a powerful computer for? Streaming Video..nope, Social Websites..nope, Shopping..nope, Gaming...Yes. The consoles of today are more than powerful enough to handle the use of the web today and I fail to see anything the web will deliver in the future that the CURRENT consoles fail to have the power to handle.
I welcome consoles trying to replace PC's in the aspect that the most power intensive apps that many PC's perform is gaming. If it wasn't for Gaming I think the need or urge to make them faster would be less likely however at the same time I think we would see better advances made. In fact I think in a future where more consoles used the web vs computers would see more advancements made. Xbox Live is a perfect example of how different the web is for console users vs PC users.
To do these things on a computer you need to:
Buy music, movies, tv shows - itunes
Stream from Netflix - Web
Teleconferance with family or friends - skype
Download game demos - search the web
Download game trailers - search the web
To do these things on Xbox or PS3 you need to:
Everything above - turn on console.
Right now we have Nvidia and ATI pouring money into trying to make new products that are only marginally superior then the last. The R&D, manufacturing and advertising money spent for only a marginal upgrade eats away at the money that could be used for longer development with greater gains.
Although it might seem silly; think of shovel-ware the same as the latest video card being produced by ATI or Nvidia. Why do we hate shovel-ware? Because instead of taking time to produce a good piece of software they make something as quick as possible. What kind of money and or advances could we see from our graphics cards if they spent more money and resources over a longer period of time?
I'm actually surprised many "Internet" companies haven't done more courting with Sony, MS or Nintendo to get thier content on those respective machines easily!
Google:
Google Maps/Earth
Picassa
Gmail
Google Docs
Flickr
Pandora
MySpace
AOL - Moviefone
etc etc
Many of these features/sites can be implimented into the OS of each machine to offer ease of use for console owners. As a PS3 owner I would rather turn on my PS3 and be able to access my email, search for movie showtimes, look at maps, stream music and few an online photo gallery updated by family and friends instead of going to my computer and fumbling through everything THEN going to my PS3 to open up a can of whoopass. I can do those on my PS3 right now but it is no different than using a computer and that is a shame.
Why can I access many of these things through apps for my cellphone but not for my more powerful console?
Just my 2 cents.
If the nextgen consoles just are PC-parts then I dont care at all for a fullfledged OS. Just put a good Browser in the Firmware (talk to Opera Sony), there is no reason for using turds like the one in the PS3. Then allow playback of all common Video/Audio Formats and this will suffice for most peoples needs.
A full OS is nice for messing with the hardware, other than that I dont see what the advantage would be compared to running Apps from the Console Dashboard/XMB.
A full OS is nice for messing with the hardware, other than that I dont see what the advantage would be compared to running Apps from the Console Dashboard/XMB.
Prophecy2k
Veteran
ShadowRunner
Veteran
Wasnt there something recent that suggested an app store for PS3? Think it was from the sony analyst conference
Last edited by a moderator:
corduroygt
Banned
Someone at Sony must be looking at porting the Chrome OS to the PS3. It'd only work when connected to PSN so no piracy issues, and PS3 can be the dumb terminal and we'd finally have a good web browser and Sony can retire the one in the PS3. Maybe they can make a deal with Google and have them port it, since installing their OS in 27+ million PS3's will give them a good headstart in OS proliferation. They might even let you control it with the new motion controller.
With respect to Xbox 360 & the new apps, I like the idea of it more than just providing a web browser. Similar to iPhone, there are apps that are way more suited than using the web sites. But if you're going to offer a Twitter/Facebook app it would be nice to know what the web site links look like. So that's why I proposed on Microsoft a web page preview image instead of a web browser. If the preview is big enough then I can determine if I want to investigate the page in more detail on my PC where the experience is more suited. So with that said I do not want to move my complete PC experience to the console. It's just not an appropriate experience.
Tommy McClain
Tommy McClain
Prophecy2k
Veteran
I think the main reason why many wanted to use Linux on the PS3 was so that they could get an easy and flexible mediaserver going to be able to watch all of their content on the tv screen, presumably downloaded or ripped contents. This has been more or less solved with the PS3 video player becoming better by supporting more formats. I think the deman has also settled down since the launch of the PS3 media server which makes it easy to do, even for people who don't work with PCs a lot.
Console-as-cheap-computer was a great idea 5 years ago. Today we have netbooks that are cheaper than consoles. If the console would be "good enough" for typical family use, then a netbook would be "better". Remember, even the weakest Atom netbook can be hooked up to a 1920x1080 TV and wireless mouse/kb, and would probably outperform PS3 Ubuntu in all real-life use case scenarios.
On Black Friday this week, netbooks are what, $200? Imagine how cheap it will be in 2011-2012 when the next consoles come out. Sony or MS could just bundle a free Acer Aspire One inside every console box, and it would probably be cheaper than building PC functionality into the console, and would give the coveted Windows compatibility that everyone wants.
On Black Friday this week, netbooks are what, $200? Imagine how cheap it will be in 2011-2012 when the next consoles come out. Sony or MS could just bundle a free Acer Aspire One inside every console box, and it would probably be cheaper than building PC functionality into the console, and would give the coveted Windows compatibility that everyone wants.
I'd like the next generation to extend what the PS3 and 360 can do this generation as far as beyond gaming features. We use our PS3 almost as much for media playback (PSN store and DLNA from my Linux box) as we do for games.
Being able to have twitter and facebook integration, or Jabber-interconnected IM service while playing games or watching videos would be very nice indeed.
Being able to have twitter and facebook integration, or Jabber-interconnected IM service while playing games or watching videos would be very nice indeed.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Well, as to console directions, MS are flat out opposed to the Xbox line becoming even remotely PC like except as it relates to serving up media.
As far as MS is concerned, a PC is a PC. A console is a console. And the only functionality that shall be shared between the two is as a means to display various traditional media (music, video, games, and pictures).
I don't really see that changing in the next Xbox.
As for PS3, it's a lot harder to tell what Sony is going to end up doing. Sony may see it as an opportunity to try to one-up MS. On the other hand, Sony may look back at this generation and think that it was too ambitious and decide to keep R&D costs down and go more console centric or at the least freeze new features for a round...
Myself, I never bought into the idea of a console as a computer replacement. I hacked the Dreamcast out of curiousity not to install Linux or surf the web. I hacked the Xbox to turn into a media portal/server and MAME machine not to run Linux or surf the web.
The only thing I'd hack a current console for is if it allowed me to install and run MAME.
And I don't see that happening anytime soon.
So I'm quite happy if consoles remained purely consoles.
Regards,
SB
As far as MS is concerned, a PC is a PC. A console is a console. And the only functionality that shall be shared between the two is as a means to display various traditional media (music, video, games, and pictures).
I don't really see that changing in the next Xbox.
As for PS3, it's a lot harder to tell what Sony is going to end up doing. Sony may see it as an opportunity to try to one-up MS. On the other hand, Sony may look back at this generation and think that it was too ambitious and decide to keep R&D costs down and go more console centric or at the least freeze new features for a round...
Myself, I never bought into the idea of a console as a computer replacement. I hacked the Dreamcast out of curiousity not to install Linux or surf the web. I hacked the Xbox to turn into a media portal/server and MAME machine not to run Linux or surf the web.
The only thing I'd hack a current console for is if it allowed me to install and run MAME.
And I don't see that happening anytime soon.So I'm quite happy if consoles remained purely consoles.
Regards,
SB
I don't know why Sony would "handicap" the PS4 by limiting features when the features they can impliment are software related. The PS3 and Xbox are already strong enough machines to do media streaming, internet surfing and countless other tasks.
IMO Sony should contact Google about Co-Creating an OS for the PS3 that later could potentially turn into a PC based OS. Google has oogles of money and has been chomping at the bit to compete against MS in many places already. The PS4 could do for Google what the PS3 did for Blu-Ray and at the same time make the PS4 stand out completely from Xbox. They would be doing what MS was afraid Sony was going to do in the first place and why MS entered the Console market.
The PS4 could then be turned into a server that is used with Client computers ($100) throughout the home. While Timmy is watching Shrek 6 on Blu-Ray his sister is downloading clips from YouTube from her room on her client computer and his father is streaming his AC/DC collection on his client computer. The PS3 is only inches away from accomplishing this task to begin with but having an OS capable is holding it back. They could take it a step further by allowing the Client Computers the ability to Remote Play and now you have the access of the PS4 anywhere in your house at any time.
Hell, Sony could sell a PSBox that is nothing more then a large external hard drive that plugs into the PS4 through SATA for storage. Give it some Blue lights, 2 3.5" drive bays, a 12v powersupply and BlueTooth so it can be automatically turned on and off with the system and you wouldn't even need a PC to act as your media server!
Just a thought
Considering the price Windows goes for, a cheaper, custom OS creating an 'Apple like' computer without the hassles of PC ownership could possible work. It wouldn't compete with PCs, which everyone will have because we need access to the software library, but it would compete with Apples and 'second computers'. If anyone's ever going to create a Windows challenger, this is perhaps the best possibility.
specwarGP2
Regular
I think the idea of a console replacing a PC for the most common PC tasks like web surfing and media playback is totally feasible now that large flat panel TVs are becoming commonplace in homes now.