Sony is officially working on PlayStation 4
- Thread starter Megadrive1988
- Start date
Megadrive1988
Veteran
I think I recall, at E3 2005 after PS3 was revealed, Sony stated they were already in the planning stages for the next console, that Nvidia and them were working on a graphics roadmap that began with RSX.
Here it is (link not working)
http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/05/24/news_6126423.html
Here it is (link not working)
http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/05/24/news_6126423.html
??? That quote is gibberish. RSX isn't a new architecture - it's 7xxx series nVidia.
NathansFortune
Regular
Osborne Computer Corporation.
Well, it can be true.
It's not an upgraded model of GPUs for PC, and it also has XDR I/O (well, at least RSX is significantly larger than G71). I'm sure I'm reading too much into it but I almost see him distinguishing between a "platform" and the PS3. It almost makes me think it's like a next gen network rather than PS4 that the R&D is about.
But that doesn't make a whole lot of sense and I'm sure he does mean Ps4.
How much was the increase in R&D expenditure anybody know?
And is Microsoft's R&D increasing right now the same way?
Anyway, the Wii2 is what is going to start to bring pressure for next gen, the writing is kind of on the wall there, especially if, as likely, it's significantly more powerful than current gen. Everybody has a ten year plan till they get punched in the face, to paraphrase Mike Tyson
But that doesn't make a whole lot of sense and I'm sure he does mean Ps4.
How much was the increase in R&D expenditure anybody know?
And is Microsoft's R&D increasing right now the same way?
Anyway, the Wii2 is what is going to start to bring pressure for next gen, the writing is kind of on the wall there, especially if, as likely, it's significantly more powerful than current gen. Everybody has a ten year plan till they get punched in the face, to paraphrase Mike Tyson
It makes sense if you picture they way in which they want to develop the PSN in terms of mobile devices, embedded devices, and consoles. If PS4 is a software platform that runs on a number of different hardware platforms, maybe with a smattering of virtualisation chucked in for good measure.
Megadrive1988
Veteran
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/multim..._PS4_Cuts_PlayStation_Development_Budget.html
Hmmmm. Well, that's very disturbing, if true....
Why? They can still make a powerful console without spending near as much on R&D. I'd certainly hope they wouldn't try to reinvent the wheel again, I don't think it served them all that well in the PS3. (I mean that I don't think the effort for cell was worth the result)
Yeah, I don't see the problem about cutting R&D for next gen. With PS3 there was some sort of mismanagement of R&D, and initial investments to begin with. They invested in lots of stuff, that didn't get used. PS3 had one SPU disable in its Cell processor. If they did it right, they would have save some money just making a 7 SPU Cell. Then there is the FLEXIO that doesn't get fully utilised. Who else does that ? Of course we all know about its security features. Also, Sony invested in PS2 BC, ended up using hardware solution and later abandon it all together. Invested in eDRAM and later seliing the fabrication plan. It's just bad decision one after the other.
Looking at NGP they seems to be more organized this time around, maybe PS4 may turn out to be their best hardware yet even if the R&D investment is lower.
Looking at NGP they seems to be more organized this time around, maybe PS4 may turn out to be their best hardware yet even if the R&D investment is lower.
maybe this time the easiest way to keep retrocompatibility with cell would be to keep cell... or just go for a mild incremental upgrade of it.
After all, the main weak point of cell was its partner.. the RSX ! and cell ended up doing all the work a cpu isn't supposed to do... from cliping/culling/optimising geometry, and lightning to postprocessing and antialiasing and even pixel shading in battlefield3 !!
This time around, they just need someone with huge balls to really choose the next gen GPU on the roadmap instead of ending with RSX when the 8800 was around the corner.
Maybe they should just release dev kits to work with higher levels API for first gen games which would work on drivers only like on PC directX games... then only authorise second gen games which would be close to metal after the release of the console which would have the "really next gen GPU". This would off course require a huge bet on the capacity of the GPU designer to deliver in due time the GPU.
I suppose it is already done this way but if they want to survive the next gen war... they really need to have a noticeable edge over microsoft this time around.. because they don't have the silky smooth LIVE and neither Kinect, and their reputation has taken a serious hit recently too.
After all, the main weak point of cell was its partner.. the RSX ! and cell ended up doing all the work a cpu isn't supposed to do... from cliping/culling/optimising geometry, and lightning to postprocessing and antialiasing and even pixel shading in battlefield3 !!
This time around, they just need someone with huge balls to really choose the next gen GPU on the roadmap instead of ending with RSX when the 8800 was around the corner.
Maybe they should just release dev kits to work with higher levels API for first gen games which would work on drivers only like on PC directX games... then only authorise second gen games which would be close to metal after the release of the console which would have the "really next gen GPU". This would off course require a huge bet on the capacity of the GPU designer to deliver in due time the GPU.
I suppose it is already done this way but if they want to survive the next gen war... they really need to have a noticeable edge over microsoft this time around.. because they don't have the silky smooth LIVE and neither Kinect, and their reputation has taken a serious hit recently too.
Indeed the X360 cost considerably less in R&D then the PS3 but put out a comparable system. The main thing a cut back in R&D costs means and that is not certain as they left it open with try will cut back on is exotic design decisions. Which is a bit of a bummer but not exactly a gamebreaker.
Didn't Sony spend a ton of that PS3 development money building a huge fab they later sold to Toshiba at a loss? Presumably Sony won't get caught up in that kind of thing again.
Nah. PS3 had massive investment for things like Cell that don't need to be reproduced. If anything they overspent on PS3, and a cutback is a case of efficiency rather than reduction. In fact at this point the hardware may be almost immaterial. The best console next gen regards the experience given to consumers may be the one with the best virtualised middleware that's portable across the most platforms.
Yeah, Sony should look at what expensive and strange hardware has brought them, and what MS has gotten with good development tools out of the box. IMHO it's very hard to justify expensive development of complicated custom CPUs and GPUs, especially when you consider the general economy and Sony's financial position.
Lucid_Dreamer
Veteran
I think the plan was for the PS4 to have reduced R&D expenditure from the start of the PS3 planning. I've always thought of the Cell as a multi-generational processor. I've thought of Blu-ray being in PS3 and PS4. Plus, the mention of a GPU roadmap starting with the RSX points to the same. Of course, I always thought the PS4 would include the evolution of those original investments.
The Cell was a processor design based on the best hardware performance one could get when unencumbered with legacy support (for die space and money). One of the goals was to be ahead of Intel's processor performance for, I believe, four or five years from launch. They have accomplished that. STI know they can, easily, push the clock speed up to 5 GHz. They, also, know they can drop up to a 36 core Cell on a 45nm process. That research is done. That screams thinking beyond the PS3 to me.
They made a lot of money from the PS2. I believe the thinking was, at some levels, about an investment into a long-term future. It seems to be an investment that spans, at least, two console generations. The software development of libraries for the Cell screams that it would not be complete in only one console generation.
This frees up options for the future. Either you can scrap everything and start over next generation, including very high R&D costs. Or, you can have much lower R&D costs next generation with high performance and ease of development (all while your competition, typically, has to invest heavily and start over).
Think of it as the filming of Matrix 2 & 3 or Lord of the Rings. It's cheaper to film the movie as one, instead of separately. The difference being that it looks worse on paper ($225 million instead of $75 million per film). In the case of the PS3 & PS4, the development appears to go beyond the short-sightedness of a single console generation.
The Cell was a processor design based on the best hardware performance one could get when unencumbered with legacy support (for die space and money). One of the goals was to be ahead of Intel's processor performance for, I believe, four or five years from launch. They have accomplished that. STI know they can, easily, push the clock speed up to 5 GHz. They, also, know they can drop up to a 36 core Cell on a 45nm process. That research is done. That screams thinking beyond the PS3 to me.
They made a lot of money from the PS2. I believe the thinking was, at some levels, about an investment into a long-term future. It seems to be an investment that spans, at least, two console generations. The software development of libraries for the Cell screams that it would not be complete in only one console generation.
This frees up options for the future. Either you can scrap everything and start over next generation, including very high R&D costs. Or, you can have much lower R&D costs next generation with high performance and ease of development (all while your competition, typically, has to invest heavily and start over).
Think of it as the filming of Matrix 2 & 3 or Lord of the Rings. It's cheaper to film the movie as one, instead of separately. The difference being that it looks worse on paper ($225 million instead of $75 million per film). In the case of the PS3 & PS4, the development appears to go beyond the short-sightedness of a single console generation.
That's an incredible amount of effort you're putting in to spin this.
Sony never intended for this generation to be something of a disaster, and I doubt that RSX was actually an expensive, ahead-of-its-time investment in PS4.
MS will have "ease of development" next generation without without sacrificing this generation, and I expect the same thing from Nintendo.
What?
Forget for a minute that I said launch at a lower price. Hypothetically what if Sony spent all it's RnD budget on a new GPU, a GPU that in all likelihood would have more potential than a competitors GPU who also has to spend money sourcing a new CPU (given identical budgets).
The consensus seems to be that the PS3 is unbalanced with too much emphasis being placed on CPU power. Would that CPU power (a nine core 3.2Ghz processor) still be adequate in a couple of years time?
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
