Sony executive hints the PlayStation 4 may surface before E3

By on January 15, 2013, 3:00 PM

Sony’s vice president of home entertainment has revealed that we could see the introduction of the PlayStation 4 sooner rather than later. Hiroshi Sakamoto recently told Chilean website Emol that Sony is hard at work on the next generation PlayStation and that they are focused on E3 in June or perhaps even earlier in May.

Most likely wouldn’t be terribly surprised to see the console show up at E3 but a May announcement would be significant as it would beat Microsoft and their planned Xbox 720 to the punch. It is widely expected that Redmond will unveil the successor to the Xbox 360 at this year’s gaming event in June.

Announcing the PS4 a month earlier would most certainly net Sony more press coverage for their console, but of course that would work the same for Microsoft at E3 if the Xbox didn’t have to compete with the PlayStation for coverage.

Neither camp has been forthcoming with details about their respective consoles which means everything we know about the two systems is based on rumors and speculation at this point. In November we heard rumblings that Sony was sending out second generation PS4 kits to game studios, codenamed Orbis. We were told at the time that a third generation kit would hit developers’ hands sometime in January.

The PS4 will reportedly ship with a modified AMD A10 APU, either 8GB or 16GB of RAM, an optical drive for Blu-ray playback and a 256GB hard drive. Wi-Fi, Ethernet connectivity and HDMI-out are also expected to be included in the final revision.




User Comments: 31

Got something to say? Post a comment
1 person liked this | SCJake said:

So...? no secondhand games = no ps4. why the hell would I waste so much money on new games when I can buy a used one literally a week later for $20?

long time PS > M$ here, but this might turn me if it really goes through

1 person liked this | GuyDalziel GuyDalziel said:

If the PS4 features game locking then they can forget about me buying one; I don't care how impressive it is. I'm a long time Playstation fan, but the disrespect that Sony have shown towards the first-sale doctrine is tantamount to a slap in the face. The reactions of others tell me I'm not alone, and if they implement this then they're making a serious mistake.

Guest said:

@first 2 posters....

while on the other hand developers keep complaining that they do not get any profit from non first hand sales and therefore in order to cover the development cost they drive up the cost of new games (70$ per new PS4/XBOX720 game, anyone?)

we'll never find love

1 person liked this | soldier1969 soldier1969 said:

Meh I'll stick with PC gaming which my rig by far surpasses anything the consoles can churn out. Even the next gen is already outdated by my standards. i7 @ 4.8, 16gb ram, GTX 680 4GB, 2560 x 1600 30" IPS display. No thanks I'll keep using my PS3 for just a media player and game on a real platform.

Guest said:

Console game makers have yet to jump on the Pay-to-Play bandwagon like PC game makers have, which essentially does away with the 2nd-hand market. If the harddrives on the new consoles are large enough, this would allow people to download the games rather than have the game producers market them out to Bestbuy or Gamestop. This is just one step further than the free-to-play demos already available on the online-console stores.

Yes not all console users are online, but a lot of gamers buy specifically for online play. Allow a $15 monthly subscription for revenue rather than a massive initial cost ($60-70)and no "resale".

The hard part is making a game worthy of more than 1 month worth of gameplay, but I leave that up to the game designers.

1 person liked this | GunsAblazin said:

I like the Playstation, but I'm not really looking forward to the PS4. Based on leaked specs it sounds very underwhelming. Developers will have to use a lot of trickery to get their games to look good on these new consoles and that's never a good thing. If Sony does go through with game locking it could be a good thing for consumers if prices go down as is on Steam. Developers wont have the excuse that used game sales are cutting into their revenues and they'll have to compromise with lower prices.

Meanwhile my Steam library is growing and they all look better on a PC. I can easily upgrade my GPU for less than the cost of a new console if I want better performance. Now that PC gaming is becoming more mainstream I hope developers will support them more. Other than the dreaded Games for Windows - Live, there is no drawback to PC gaming.

Independent games are gaining more ground, they require less system resources, and they tend to have more innovative gameplay than big blockbuster games. In this new gaming age with the bad economy and casual gaming, I can see Indie games and smaller systems taking over.

2 people like this | Guest said:

I can't wait for another 10 years of consoles holding back PC games.

St1ckM4n St1ckM4n said:

Three things here confuse me:

1. A10 APU? What? Since when is that enough power for a desktop, let alone a console. The Cell processor in PS3 dominates traditional desktop CPUs in FLOPS I believe?

2. X720 and PS4 will both feature blu-ray, meaning there is no excuse now to not use higher-res textures on both platforms. 8GB+ of RAM seems to support this. However, what's going on with the low HDD storage? Not including 1TB is simply stupid, as the blu-ray drive will most likely still not have the bandwidth to transfer the large data on-the-fly.

3. Everyone is making an assumption that locked down games will equal lower purchase prices, as developers have a lot more revenue going to them. Wrong, prices will stay the same and go up as per normal inflation. Case in point: Australia has games starting at $100 AUD - back in the day of bad exchange rate, $60USD was close to $90-100AUD, however now our dollar is higher and we still pay $100.

Guest said:

Everyone complaining about the "No Second Hand Games" BS Needs to get a clue. Second Hand games are a multi BILLION dollar industry. Do you really thing GameFly and GameStop are going to let that go? Dont be Stupid. Second hand games will play just fine in the PS4.

1 person liked this | davislane1 davislane1 said:

Everyone complaining about the "No Second Hand Games" BS Needs to get a clue. Second Hand games are a multi BILLION dollar industry. Do you really thing GameFly and GameStop are going to let that go? Dont be Stupid. Second hand games will play just fine in the PS4.

Good points. However, this is one multi-billion dollar industry competing against another. Just because Gamefly et al. have a stake in the secondhand market does not mean the devs and publishers won't still go after used games. Outright banishment of used games is out of the question, but activation fees and the like are a highly probable reaction to increasing used game sales.

Sony has been blunder machine as if late, anyways. Shooting themselves in the foot with some type of half-baked content control scheme wouldn't be a big surprise.

Vrmithrax Vrmithrax, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Everyone complaining about the "No Second Hand Games" BS Needs to get a clue. Second Hand games are a multi BILLION dollar industry. Do you really thing GameFly and GameStop are going to let that go? Dont be Stupid. Second hand games will play just fine in the PS4.

You are assuming that GameStop and GameFly have anything at all to do with Sony's corporate decisions on whether to support legacy games. Maybe take a hard look at Sony's policies of late, like only early (and then select model later) PS3s being able to play PS2 titles. Or removing the UMD drives on the PSP Go and Vita and requiring you to repurchase any of your old titles digitally to play on the new hardware. Their track record suggests your assumptions are in no way guaranteed.

Just because we want a PS4 to play PS3 games, that doesn't mean it WILL. It's all a corporate decision. Companies like GameFly and GameStop only give Sony a tiny margin of their revenue - just the initial licensing fee on the first sale of their games, basically. The multi-billions those companies make is not Sony's money, so I'd guess the welfare of those trading and rental stores will only be a minor factor in the ultimate decision on backwards compatibility...

Guest said:

Guest said:

Everyone complaining about the "No Second Hand Games" BS Needs to get a clue. Second Hand games are a multi BILLION dollar industry. Do you really thing GameFly and GameStop are going to let that go? Dont be Stupid. Second hand games will play just fine in the PS4.

No it won't, Sony filed a patent that will lock games according to the user's account - you can't buy used games anymore. Microsoft will do the same at the urging of the game companies.

avoidz avoidz said:

@first 2 posters....

while on the other hand developers keep complaining that they do not get any profit from non first hand sales and therefore in order to cover the development cost they drive up the cost of new games (70$ per new PS4/XBOX720 game, anyone?)

we'll never find love

Worst thing a company can do is start blaming its customers for their woes.

Tiberath Tiberath said:

@first 2 posters....

while on the other hand developers keep complaining that they do not get any profit from non first hand sales and therefore in order to cover the development cost they drive up the cost of new games (70$ per new PS4/XBOX720 game, anyone?)

we'll never find love

Well then, I guess I can expect to pay $120.00 per new release for that console then. YayAustralia.

ikesmasher said:

Three things here confuse me:

1. A10 APU? What? Since when is that enough power for a desktop, let alone a console. The Cell processor in PS3 dominates traditional desktop CPUs in FLOPS I believe?

.

the a10 is very capable for budget PCs, and on the static hardware for consoles should be more than capable of running modern games for several years, especially seeing what components the xbox 360 uses...

Guest said:

Here are few solutions for the developers:

1. Make good quality games = no one gonna sell it because they are going to play it like crazy

2. Lower the price of games = people with tighter budget will buy it

3. Profit $$$

Guest said:

I truly believe MS and Sony will try to limit second hand games on their consoles, how will that play out when your at your friends house playing on their machine? Log in's perhaps? I do not know but either way limiting used games or asking for money to activate them is surely going to start a big damn fight.

I just purchased a used Audi A7 and Audi wants a 1,000 dollars to activate it....er um put it into their dealer maintenance data base. That would never fly.

Guest said:

Guest said:

I truly believe MS and Sony will try to limit second hand games on their consoles, how will that play out when your at your friends house playing on their machine? Log in's perhaps? I do not know but either way limiting used games or asking for money to activate them is surely going to start a big damn fight.

With the new patent, Sony will use an electronic content processing system that will check the game's ID to see if it's used or new. If it's new, a piece of data will be stored on the console only once which means if you bring the game to your friend's place it won't work.

Guest said:

soldier1969 said:

Meh I'll stick with PC gaming which my rig by far surpasses anything the consoles can churn out. Even the next gen is already outdated by my standards. i7 @ 4.8, 16gb ram, GTX 680 4GB, 2560 x 1600 30" IPS display. No thanks I'll keep using my PS3 for just a media player and game on a real platform.

Of course a PC will always outperform a console. Look at the money spent. It's like comparing a Bugatti to a Fiat 500. What matters are the games and whether the person playing is having fun or not. Real gamers play games that they enjoy regardless if it's on a computer, console, or handheld.

Guest said:

The crazy price (they would probably) ask for it will get me a good functional PC.

so sorry Sony not interested.

1 person liked this | GuyDalziel GuyDalziel said:

@first 2 posters....

while on the other hand developers keep complaining that they do not get any profit from non first hand sales and therefore in order to cover the development cost they drive up the cost of new games (70$ per new PS4/XBOX720 game, anyone?)

Can the same not be said for anything? Next you'll be claiming that game renting is also bad and needs to be stopped. If I sell my car, am I not relieving an auto dealer of the opportunity to sell a new car? If I sell my sofa, does the furniture store suffer because they've lost out on a sale? There has always been a market for second-hand goods, and you're getting items for a reduced price because they're not new. You can't just draw the line where you decide it's convenient to do so.

Once a material object is sold a company's interests in what happens to that object become irrelevant -- that is the law. I can sell it, rent it, give it someone as a gift, or even throw it on the fire, as long as I'm not making copies of it and selling those. I refuse to be labelled as a threat to gaming simply because I'm willing to pay less for a copy that isn't brand spanking new.

raypozas said:

A modified A10 with perhaps its own dedicated GPU memory and the Richland chip architecture could function at 1080P well enough.

Mandark Mandark said:

I want to know where you can buy a used game for 20 dollars a week after the game came out.....

anyway, I am against them stopping people from running used games. If they go that route, I will keep my ps3 until it dies and no more Sony.

De4ler De4ler said:

HAHAHAHaha ahaaa ha .... consoles sux

cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Once a material object is sold a company's interests in what happens to that object become irrelevant -- that is the law. I can sell it, rent it, give it someone as a gift, or even throw it on the fire, as long as I'm not making copies of it and selling those. I refuse to be labelled as a threat to gaming simply because I'm willing to pay less for a copy that isn't brand spanking new.
I do like the way you think about this topic.

I would also like to mention the possibility that people may not be willing to pay the same prices, if they are not allowed to resell. If they usually purchase a game for $60 and then resell for $40, they would probably only be willing to spend $20 on an item they couldn't resell. I honestly don't see any financial gains in preventing resell. Personally, if I'm not willing to spend $60 on a game, I still wouldn't be willing to spend $60 if I couldn't find a cheaper second hand copy.

You see, I look at movies and games this way. There are literally thousands of movies and games. I would like to see and play them all. But yet at the prices being asked, I must choose. Its this choice to choose one over the other that keeps people from purchasing certain games. Its not that they don't want the game, it the fact that they can't pay for the game (that is when they choose to spend on another). If the movie/gaming industry want people to purchase their products they can lower their prices, so that people will not be forced into making choices that would exclude them as a possible prospect.

TorturedChaos, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

I have been a large console (and Playstation) fan since the first PS came out. But as time goes on I find my self playing more and more games on my PC then on my PS3. My poor PS3 sits on it self and occasionally plays a game I borrow from a friend or a Blu-Ray I rented. (I mostly bought it to play new Final Fantasy style JRPG's that seem to be mostly PS3 exclusive, but there seems to be a large lacking of them lately).

If all backwards compatibility is removed and games get locked to the PS4 I really don't have much of a reason to buy one. Most of the games I want to play eventually come out on the PC and I can play them there. They small portion of games that will be PS4 exclusive or don't play well on the computer (like Street Fight - IMO) wont be worth it to buy a $400-$500 console, especially if I can't swap games with my friends.

Guest said:

Im probably oing to be the one here tha agrees to kill the resell of games , but its just because it gets me so pissed off when I just bought a game and maybe I go to game stop and try to sell it they give you $10 for it and put on their shelfs for $54.99. and its suck a lucrative business that they sometimes make more money than the developers that worked one year or two on the game, that does not seem fair

cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

its such a lucrative business that they sometimes make more money than the developers that worked one year or two on the game, that does not seem fair
And who was it that decided to let a product go back to a shelf with the potential for such great markup? When you answer that question you will know who's fault it was in giving them more money than the developers. You can't blame a business, if people are willing to give them products to sell.

Perhaps the producers should setup a return policy for those who grow tired of the game, to protect their investment for future sells. This policy could prevent businesses from purchasing second hand merchandise for less than a specific price that developers have set. But in the end who would this disappoint? Resell allows consumers to move on and try something new (notice the word new as in a new game).

St1ckM4n St1ckM4n said:

Another thing I don't understand is why there is no second hand market for DVD's and other consumable media. I know there is renting, but these places rent out games too.

A movie or a CD doesn't change, it is constant. Yet people purchase these to watch over and over again. A game usually has a constant storyline or a linear gameplay, but it sure as hell plays different every time you pop it in.

GuyDalziel GuyDalziel said:

Perhaps the producers should setup a return policy for those who grow tired of the game, to protect their investment for future sells. This policy could prevent businesses from purchasing second hand merchandise for less than a specific price that developers have set.

They tried that before in 1908 with the book 'The Castaway' by Hallie Erminie Rives in which the book stated, "The price of this book at retail is $1 net. No dealer is licensed to sell it at a lower price, and a sale at a lower price will be treated as an infringement of the copyright". However, R. H. Macy & Co purchased a whole load of them in bulk and sold them for 89c each.

The court decided in favour of R. H. Macy & Co as the publisher did not have a right to limit resale since purchasing of the object does not constitute a contract. They can "recommend" a retail price, but people are not obliged to stick with that.

Frankly if one is selling games for $10 which then go on to be sold for $50, then perhaps one should take a lesson from that and sell them elsewhere? This sort of thing happens everywhere, from antique dealers to market sellers; I fail to see why games should be specifically targeted.

cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

The court decided in favour of R. H. Macy & Co as the publisher did not have a right to limit resale since purchasing of the object does not constitute a contract. They can "recommend" a retail price, but people are not obliged to stick with that.
Interesting!!!

Makes me wonder how we can be forced to use our products in specific ways, if we are not purchasing contracts.

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.