Sony confirms next-gen console is in development

By on May 27, 2011, 9:30 AM

Sony had some interesting tidbits to share at its quarterly financial briefing yesterday. Besides breaking down the previously disclosed $3.1 billion loss for the fiscal year 2011, which primarily stemmed from a $4.4 billion write-down in deferred-tax assets in Japan, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Masaru Kato had this to say when queried about the recent increase in research and development costs:

"For the home equipment the PS3 still has a product life, but this is a platform business, so for the future platform - when we'll be introducing what product I cannot discuss that - but our development work is already under way, so the costs are incurred there."

The release of a next-generation console from Sony is probably a long way off, considering the company has previously said the PlayStation 3 will have a 10-year lifespan and it was released in 2006. Back in March, Sony CEO Kaz Hirai said "a near-future PS4 or next-generation home console is not something that [the company] is even debating now", and that may remain true, but if such is the case it's still good to know the development process has begun this far out.

The news come after Nintendo confirmed that its upcoming gaming console, dubbed "Project Cafe", will be revealed during E3 2011 next month and will be on sale next year. Meanwhile, Microsoft recently posted multiple job openings on LinkedIn to fill several positions in their Xbox division, and was also rumored to have handed out a prototype development kit for the Xbox 360's successor to EA, but the latter has categorically denied those reports.




User Comments: 36

Got something to say? Post a comment
example1013 said:

As long as they're not making a new disc drive, this should be good news. The cost of the PS3 at launch was ridiculous.

Mizzou Mizzou said:

Sony really can't afford to allow Microsoft and Nintendo to release their next generation consoles well in advance of their own offering. It will also be interesting to see if sony will be sticking with the cell processor or not. Seems like they would have significant issues with backwards compatibility if they opt for a more traditional processor. Think it's a pretty safe bet that the next XBox and Wii will be backwards compatible with the current generation, don't think Sony can afford to blow it on that front again.

Lurker101 said:

Lurker101 confirms that he has no interest in buying Sonys next-gen console

Guest said:

it seems they make enough profit to develop a ps4? where are the lost? they lied, the they dont make the money they proyected but never lost any cent on the ps3, so it should be cheaper this time, with less components bcuz technologically speaking...what will be the improvement? maybe 2GB of memory and a better graphic card and slimmer, i think that they are in a hurry just to resecure the console with a better design and the chance to charge for the online experience....at least to make it worthy the ps4 should arrive in 2017,if not....it means they have learned the way the life spawn of apple products works....and for a console that sucks!!!!, they dont try to get better..they just try to make us fools over and over again!!!!

example1013 said:

Microsoft purposefully bottlenecked the new 360s. I don't think either company is looking to iterate in anything near the fashion PC tech does.

Superpeter Superpeter said:

If your not under 15 years old and can earn your own money, Get a decent computer if your serious about gaming. Stop buying this crap so they will make better ones...My new original term---"Consoles R 4 kids"...says it all really.

Tomorrow_Rains said:

Why does it feel like Sony is going to release a new console which instead of a disc drive is going to contain a hard drive, you're going to need internet connection and are only going to be able to download the games from sony servers.

hrm...and monthly subscriptions.

Already Feels Expensive.

stewi0001 stewi0001 said:

Hopefully they will make it more game developer friendly since, if I remember correctly, each of the sub-processer has its own complier and thus more of a pain to program.

feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that.

treetops treetops said:

Sweet, its no coincidence a new console has not been released since 2005, our bad economy has had console makers scared since 2007 biding there time until it picked up again.

TomSEA TomSEA, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

I'm suspecting that both MS and Sony are now ramping up their next-gen console development after Nintendo made their recent announcement. None of these groups wants to be the last to release a new console. Which suits me fine. The faster MS and Sony get their consoles out, the faster developers will build better games to match the newer hardware. Right now as PC gamers, we're getting screwed over with crappy console ports of games that are using damn near 10 year old technology.

Benny26 Benny26, TechSpot Paladin, said:

It's tough to really think about "the next big thing" that the PS4 could have for me though.

ramonsterns said:

Oh boy, more outdated crap being developed in an attempt to draw those unwilling to learn the basics of computers (See: Ignorant) to milk as much money out of them as possible. I can't wait to play "Call of Duty: Black Ops 3: The Return of Modern Warfare 5: The Movie: The Game", "Madden 2016", and "Street Fighter 4:SUPER MEGA ELITE ARCADE EDITION 2" when it comes out.

example1013 said:

Superpeter said:

If your not under 15 years old and can earn your own money, Get a decent computer if your serious about gaming. Stop buying this crap so they will make better ones...My new original term---"Consoles R 4 kids"...says it all really.

Yeah, none of us have to pay for college, or food, or gas, or insurance, or other things, and have tons of money available to blow on a $1000 system that's going to be used exclusively for dicking around, and is going to need to be updated to another $1000 system in 2 years. A slight exaggeration, but you get the point.

Paying $300 for a single-function device is a lot better than paying even $500 for a single-function device. And this is before we even get into ancillary costs, like electricity.

ramonsterns said:

example1013 said:

Yeah, none of us have to pay for college, or food, or gas, or insurance, or other things, and have tons of money available to blow on a $1000 system that's going to be used exclusively for dicking around, and is going to need to be updated to another $1000 system in 2 years. A slight exaggeration, but you get the point.

Paying $300 for a single-function device is a lot better than paying even $500 for a single-function device. And this is before we even get into ancillary costs, like electricity.

Or you could save the $300-$500 and buy a $500-$700 computer which will run most games, make surfing easier, or waste less of your life if you're going into any sort of digital media?

You *are* going to need a computer anyways, instead of buying two shitty products, save yourself the $200-$300 for a basic computer and the $300-$500 for a console, and WHAM, you suddenly have enough for a mid-range computer.

Trillionsin Trillionsin said:

example1013 said:

Superpeter said:

If your not under 15 years old and can earn your own money, Get a decent computer if your serious about gaming. Stop buying this crap so they will make better ones...My new original term---"Consoles R 4 kids"...says it all really.

Yeah, none of us have to pay for college, or food, or gas, or insurance, or other things, and have tons of money available to blow on a $1000 system that's going to be used exclusively for dicking around, and is going to need to be updated to another $1000 system in 2 years. A slight exaggeration, but you get the point.

Paying $300 for a single-function device is a lot better than paying even $500 for a single-function device. And this is before we even get into ancillary costs, like electricity.

Are you suggesting a PC is a single-function device? Because if you are, let the flamming begin.

example1013 said:

ramonsterns said:

example1013 said:

Yeah, none of us have to pay for college, or food, or gas, or insurance, or other things, and have tons of money available to blow on a $1000 system that's going to be used exclusively for dicking around, and is going to need to be updated to another $1000 system in 2 years. A slight exaggeration, but you get the point.

Paying $300 for a single-function device is a lot better than paying even $500 for a single-function device. And this is before we even get into ancillary costs, like electricity.

Or you could save the $300-$500 and buy a $500-$700 computer which will run most games, make surfing easier, or waste less of your life if you're going into any sort of digital media?

You *are* going to need a computer anyways, instead of buying two shitty products, save yourself the $200-$300 for a basic computer and the $300-$500 for a console, and WHAM, you suddenly have enough for a mid-range computer.

Or you can spend $300 on the console, $100 on a cheaper, used computer that's good enough to get on the internet, and save $200 while still being able to enjoy games. The midrange computer would be obsolete even faster, and unable to run anything after 2 or 3 years, whereas the console will likely still be good 5 or more years down the road, with no updates necessary. I have my GameCube from like 2005 and it still runs perfectly, and my PS3 from 2007 works excellently, too. However, no computer within my house is that old, and the machines at my job that are 4 years old get bogged down running 5 instances of Firefox.

princeton princeton said:

Implying that consoles are ever next gen. Consoles are last gen at launch and continue to age,

Guest said:

It's interesting how console gamers ALWAYS forget to include the cost of games into the PC vs. Console argument.

Can you get games for $5-10 like you can on Steam? Not a chance.

Do consoles games command a $10 premium over PC games at launch? Yup.

Do PC games drop in value much quicker within 2-3 months of release? Yup.

Also, when was the last time a gamer's console was $200-300 at launch? Oh right, 10 years ago.

PS3 20GB launched at $499 USD.

PS3 40GB launched at $599 USD.

Xbox360 20GB launched at $399 USD.

So basically this $200-300 console cost makes no sense unless you plan to wait until 2016 before PS4 and Xbox720 fall to those price levels. That means you have another 5 years of gaming on already awful PS3/Xbox360 graphics......that's not comparing apples-to-apples with PC.

Finally, it doesn't cost $1000 every 2 years on the PC. You can purchase a Core i5 2500k for $225, 8GBs of ram for $75, $150 mobo, $50 hard drive, and a $125 case + PSU + DVD-writer = $550.

Now just add a $200 GPU. Every 2 years you just sell that GPU and reinvest the savings into another $200 GPU. I guarantee that overclocked to 4.5ghz+, the 2500k will easily last 3-4 years. So all that will be required is reselling the videocard. Overall cost for 5 years on videocards wouldn't be more than $500 (what a console costs). But you also use your desktop for everything else right? The cost difference isn't as large as people make it.

example1013 said:

Princeton said:

Implying that consoles are ever next gen. Consoles are last gen at launch and continue to age,

But that doesn't affect their ability to play current-gen games, which is really my only point.

example1013 said:

Most console gamers use shitty computers that can only handle internet browsing, word processing, and e-mail, because that's all they use them for. At least that's what I'm figuring, because I can't think of any reason to buy a console if you already have a $1000 PC.

BMfan BMfan said:

This just proves that most PC gamers are full of ****,just because you would like a world with no consoles so everyone else that likes having a console should just get lost.

Why can't we have both?

There are a few games i like on my PS and if i feel like playing a FPS i use my PC,

If the only reason you dislike consoles is because the developers are now just porting games across then complain to the developers for been lazy.

Benny26 Benny26, TechSpot Paladin, said:

...and have tons of money available to blow on a $1000 system that's going to be used exclusively for dicking around, and is going to need to be updated to another $1000 system in 2 years.

Naah!...Maybe 3 years, yeah.

'dicking around'? <---*Copy*

[Insert a general definition of video gaming here] <---*Paste*

Guest said:

Cant wait to see what SONY has in-store! This gen PS3 is superb. Can they top that? Well... am in ... an curious to join the line with my wallet. Am sure this time tho, they wont make the same mistake as before. Bring it, SONY!!!

M1r said:

...to each their own.

ramonsterns said:

example1013 said:

Or you can spend $300 on the console, $100 on a cheaper, used computer that's good enough to get on the internet, and save $200 while still being able to enjoy games. The midrange computer would be obsolete even faster, and unable to run anything after 2 or 3 years, whereas the console will likely still be good 5 or more years down the road, with no updates necessary. I have my GameCube from like 2005 and it still runs perfectly, and my PS3 from 2007 works excellently, too. However, no computer within my house is that old, and the machines at my job that are 4 years old get bogged down running 5 instances of Firefox.

My point still stands, why would you buy 2 mediocre things when you can have 1 decent thing instead?

It's like being given a choice of two jugs of bad beer and a glass of good beer. Except the glass of good beer is cheap to refill.

Guest said:

PS has excellent exclusives... I have a $1,200.00 PC, I have a PS3, I love them all... I can't play Killzone 3, Uncharted 1 and 2, Heavy Rain, SOCOM 4, Demon's Souls (the best RPG out there as far as I'm concerned) on the PC right...that is why I still buy a console...PC gaming sucks, so what if it has the power to give you excellent graphics... there really isn't much good games out there honestly. And you're a retard to think that if you have a thousand dollar PC or more... you don't need to get consoles...tard... big time tard...

princeton princeton said:

example1013 said:

Princeton said:

Implying that consoles are ever next gen. Consoles are last gen at launch and continue to age,

But that doesn't affect their ability to play current-gen games, which is really my only point.

Because we aren't getting any current gen games. The last game that actually took advantage of how powerful PC hardware can be was Metro 2033. The games are last gen quality in terms of world sizes, viewdistances, aesthetics and graphics because the devs only cater to what the console can do.

ramonsterns said:

Guest said:

PS has excellent exclusives... I have a $1,200.00 PC, I have a PS3, I love them all... I can't play Killzone 3, Uncharted 1 and 2, Heavy Rain, SOCOM 4, Demon's Souls (the best RPG out there as far as I'm concerned) on the PC right...that is why I still buy a console...PC gaming sucks, so what if it has the power to give you excellent graphics... there really isn't much good games out there honestly. And you're a retard to think that if you have a thousand dollar PC or more... you don't need to get consoles...tard... big time tard...

While I can't argue about Demon's Souls, we have plenty of sci-fi shooters, third person shooters, visual novels, and a crap ton of other things. All consoles have is "that game not on the PC because *respective console's company* paid a lot of money to keep it that way".

Anyone who truly believes "PC Gaming sucks" doesn't do any PC gaming, or they tried, ran into the first error and gave up. PC has the largest library of games, bigger than all 3 consoles' combined, so if there isn't a game to suit your fancy, you haven't looked hard enough.

Richy2k9 said:

hello ...

each time i LOL when such an article is posted here & even if i try hard not to reply, i always find myself doing so ... shame on me ...

well PC gaming is A.W.E.S.O.M.E for those having a PC, console gaming is A.W.E.S.O.M.E for those having any console & gaming is just E.P.I.C & A.W.E.S.O.M.E for those having all platforms :P

it is not a matter of quality or graphics or longevity ,,, it's all about the money & ... time!

if you have the money, you are the lucky one that can play MK every night on your PS3 & rule over with Kratos, you can then next morning say hello to your cool friends in Paris in City of Heroes on PC, while once in a while pop in, sorry, just Steam launch Crysis or maybe even Heretic to have a blast while the wify watches telenovela & why not in week-end spend some time outside, to some nature parks or seaside. When bored you still can have some fun with Incal balls on the older PC, nah today it's Plants vs Zombies instead well until the wify wants her PC back for youtube or facebook. OK leggo watch some TV, if nothing interesting start that PS3 again & go for some Angry birds or maybe God of war unless if i need some more exercise & want to have fun so go for Singstar Dance, when done sweating going back to the 2nd PC, OMG i still need to finisg Diablo II on the old 1 & can't wait for Diablo III ... OK, no Crysis for today, maybe TDU2 or RIse of the Argonauts, or Bob came in pieces :P .. no again City of heroes (Ultra mode siouplé)

If I had time, would also love to pop in Alan Wake in my future Xbox360, why not Gears of War 3 ... sounds promising

Well i know what i want & i know what i need, i just don't understand people comparing futile stuffs while the real reasons one can't have multiple platforms for gaming would be reality! ... we just can't spend that much on entertainment, but when we do it doesn't mean we are foolish, as long as we control ourselves on our expenses. Best platform for gaming doesn't exist, for like i said someone can have fun with Tennis for two on an oscilloscope, play old games on NES, play high definition or better than high definition games on PC & consoles & still loving it ... it's all about the money & time ...

I need more money & retire then I will be one happy gamer (oh will go out also ... sea, sun & huh ...) :P

cheers!

p.s. I need to buy the Witcher 2 :P, hoping to finish all my PC/PS3 games before infamous 2 / uncharted 3 / Batman AA / Diablo III comes along ...... aaaarrrrrrrrrrgggh!

Benny26 Benny26, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Richy2k9 said:

if you have the money, you are the lucky one that can play MK every night on your PS3 & rule over with Kratos

Not everyone needs money to enjoy the finer things in life, generous parents can be enough.

--Benny

(or in other words 'I got my PS3 for my birthday'

Emin3nce said:

Question:

Will it run on the PSN and lose your credit card info to hackers on the web?

// lol //

gingerbill said:

I certainly cant believe sony will find it viable to wait another 5 years for a new console , cant see 360/PS3 lasting another 5 years , they already starting to look old hat now . Guess they might not have a choice financially . If microsoft bring one out though in the next couple of years then sony has too or skip a console generation. Noone would be happy with a PS3 if theres a xbox720 , or vice versa.

AnonymousSurfer AnonymousSurfer said:

Thats because they were switching from normal discs to blue-ray, as was the rest of the technological market at the time. They wouldn't be releasing something different from blue-ray, seeing it has the best quality for video on the market... The most they will be doing is updating the software (if not making an entirely new one), updating the specs (hopefully enough to knock the socks off of xbox seeing ps3 uses blue-ray), and adding new features.

Guest said:

You console haters must be very lonely considering that when your friends are over and you want to play games everybody but the person sits and watches, but that isn't the situation you're in considering that nobody cares about that here and most people spend their time dissing consoles on this site so I really doubt they have any friends... I love having my cousins and friends over playing on my 40 inch in my bedroom on a CONSOLE.

Trainass said:

Mizzou said:

Sony really can't afford to allow Microsoft and Nintendo to release their next generation consoles well in advance of their own offering. It will also be interesting to see if sony will be sticking with the cell processor or not. Seems like they would have significant issues with backwards compatibility if they opt for a more traditional processor. Think it's a pretty safe bet that the next XBox and Wii will be backwards compatible with the current generation, don't think Sony can afford to blow it on that front again.

I remember reading something somewhere, a long while back, that said that Sony wasn't going to go with the Cell again. Or that IBM wasn't going to provide Sony with another Cell line for the next Playstation console.

IMO it was a complete waste of money and tech. Was more marketing hype than anything else really, I found.

Trainass said:

Guest said:

It's interesting how console gamers ALWAYS forget to include the cost of games into the PC vs. Console argument.

Can you get games for $5-10 like you can on Steam? Not a chance.

Do consoles games command a $10 premium over PC games at launch? Yup.

Do PC games drop in value much quicker within 2-3 months of release? Yup.

Also, when was the last time a gamer's console was $200-300 at launch? Oh right, 10 years ago.

PS3 20GB launched at $499 USD.

PS3 40GB launched at $599 USD.

Xbox360 20GB launched at $399 USD.

So basically this $200-300 console cost makes no sense unless you plan to wait until 2016 before PS4 and Xbox720 fall to those price levels. That means you have another 5 years of gaming on already awful PS3/Xbox360 graphics......that's not comparing apples-to-apples with PC.

Finally, it doesn't cost $1000 every 2 years on the PC. You can purchase a Core i5 2500k for $225, 8GBs of ram for $75, $150 mobo, $50 hard drive, and a $125 case + PSU + DVD-writer = $550.

Now just add a $200 GPU. Every 2 years you just sell that GPU and reinvest the savings into another $200 GPU. I guarantee that overclocked to 4.5ghz+, the 2500k will easily last 3-4 years. So all that will be required is reselling the videocard. Overall cost for 5 years on videocards wouldn't be more than $500 (what a console costs). But you also use your desktop for everything else right? The cost difference isn't as large as people make it.

Heck any decent quad-core CPU today will easily last you up to 5yrs. CPU's aren't getting any faster, just more cores and a smaller manufacturing process. And the majority of apps and games don't even take advantage of dual-core let alone quad-core CPUs. And with RAM and HDD space getting cheaper, decking out your rig is easy. And then like what was said, games are a lot cheaper on the PC, plus sales. Win for PC.

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.