Sony confirms next-gen console is in development

[ramonsterns]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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 .. 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 ...)

cheers!

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

 

[Benny26]

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]

Question:

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

// lol //

 

[gingerbill]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.