Ben-DutkaSony has gone on record saying they have no intention of pursuing another piece of hardware any time soon.
In fact, when asked directly, all Sony executives will say the PlayStation 3 is just getting going, that it has "at least" a 10-year lifespan, and that the PS4 is far off in the distance. Well, if that's true, Taiwan-based component makers have some screwy information.
According to DigiTimes , production will supposedly begin on the PS4 at the end of this year, and will launch in 2012. It will boast movement-based control like Microsoft's Kinect and believe it or not, they even have an estimate for the initial shipment: 20 million units. Now, just for the hell of it, we refer you to the following commercial, long since confirmed as fake:
We make no further comment. What do you think about all this?
Complete and unmitigated BS.
First of all Sony already has Move, which they are pushing ahead with strongly. Secondly, Move is a super-set of Kinect functionality. Thirdly, Sony is launching Vita this year and has openly recognized that they distracted themselves and the market away from the PSP with the PS3 emphasis. Fourth, Sony has stated more or less across the board that they won't be talking about PS4 for a long while, and fifth, if Sony was gearing up to release the PS4 in 2012, they'd already have talked about it.
However I want to come back to the comment about Kinect. The article says (according to DigiTimes) "It will boast movement-based control like Microsoft's Kinect". That one statement just kills the entire thing for me. PS3 already boasts a superior motion control technology to Kinect, and has essentially since launch enjoyed the same control options as Kinect by virtue of the PS Eye. Quite apart from Anything else, Kinect is not part of the MS console, it's an add on camera, the console doesn't boast anything additional except a USB port. It doesn't make sense in terms of the technology or reality of the consoles, so I call BS on the entire thing.
Well deduced, good sir!
For those giving a thumbs down, I'd love to hear why you disagree.
Because you called Kinect inferior to the Move which, to the general public, is not true.
Last edited by cLoudou on 7/4/2011 10:31:08 PM
LOL! Well, that's because the general public (in North America) think that Microsoft is good and Sony is bad. Their loss – and their mistake, on both counts (Sony vs MS and Move vs Kinect).
TheHighlander, You think 120hz is a good refresh rate for games in 3D, or Movies? Or perhaps not at all…
Ben, I apologise in advanced for being off topic but TheHighlander knows it all…
Highlander,
I agree that PS4 will not come for a while. (I actually believe it's based on the market rather than a set 2014 or whatever. If Wii U sells a lot of units or Xbox releases their next box, it'll change Sony's schedule.)
Kinect simply doesn't work so well. When Kinect was announced, imaginations run wild in my mind of the possibilities of fun games. If you can use the standard controller and add in motion controls with a camera, there's endless possibilities. But… my two hands are glued to the controller, I can't imagine myself throwing the controller to the floor to slap a ball then pick it up again. So the most ideal motion/hardcore gameplay is to break the controller into two pieces… but wait a minute… thats the Move already.
You mean 120 hz display of a 60 frames per second feed? Or do you mean full 120 frames per second?
120 frames per second (which would require a refresh of 120 Hz) is too many frames, the eye can't really distinguish much past 60 frames per second. 60 frames per second displayed at 120hz would be nice. 120HZ TVs use a processing technique to take the 60 frames per second (or 30 frames per second) and video process them to increase the apparent number of frames to full 120 frames per second. It produces a smoother look to the motion on screen. It's not adding any more visual information, but it provides smoother motion on screen as the TV kind of performs an in-betweening process between frames. but the benefit is limited if a game is already rendering at 60 frames per second.
All that said, if it's a case of choosing a new TV and there isn't a huge difference in price, 120Hz is better than 60hz.
"Well, that's because the general public (in North America) think that Microsoft is good and Sony is bad." – I disagree. I believe the general public, and the media (just look at the coverage Kinetic get all over the world) find kinetic to be the most exciting, impressive product of the two. It simply looks more impressive when you have no controllers, as opposed to holding a stick or two. I think it's that simple.
BeamBoom, the emperor is naked….Kinect is like the emperor's new clothes, there is no substance there at all, the emperor is naked. Incidentally, outside the NA and UK markets, most of the world prefers Sony, PS3 and Move. The US market being the most distorted of all. Personally, I think that has more to do with MS marketing and media bias than anything else. I've been following technology and video gaming since the mid 90's and I've never seen this kind of distortion before. MS has managed quite a feat, and it's not a good thing for gaming.
We talk about two different things. You talk about the technology, I talk about the perception. The emperor may be as naked as he want, as long as he is percepted as having clothes on.
The non-tech people, (who let's face it, are the vast majority of both console owners and media in general) think Kinetic LOOKS more impressive. Even I think so. It simply looks cooler when you can just stand in front of the TV and gesticulate, than to hold a stick with a large glowing dot on.
This, and the very cool demo MS did where they interacted with a girl on the screen. That was impressive back then.
It's not just in the usa kinetic enjoy more attention. It's the same here in europe. Kinetic is much more often mentioned in the general media as an example of the "new technology".
Last edited by Beamboom on 7/5/2011 12:33:40 AM
Count Australia in the top 360 loving nations there Highlander, but it is decreasing, and PS3 love is increasing, however, the whole PSN hack was a bit of a blow, but it's passed pretty quick regardless.
As for Kinect vs Move, there is no doubt that Move is more accurate and better to use with hardcore and casual gaming, but comparing Kinect to the PSeye I believe is wrong.
Please Highlander, if you have any spec knowledge between Kinect and PSeye that shows the PSeye being capable of doing body, limb and even finger tracking in a 3D field with individual body and face recognition, then I would love to hear it.
As for the PSeye, I always thought it was a higher resolution Eyetoy camera that only recognised movement on 2D image feedback. With 2 lens and an infrared sensor, I think the Kinect is a little more than a glorified PSeye camera, even if it is only a gimmick like the Wii remote for now.
BeamBoom, I've been able to stand in front of my TV and gesticulate to control games since the PS2. Kinect isn't that impressive, but perhaps I'm spoiled by having seen it 6-7 years before MS did it?
Dance machine, the Eyetoy could do limb and body tracking on the PS2, the PSEye can track in a much higher resolution than the EyeToy, and at a faster sampling rate than Kinect. Kinect's 'trick' is to use IR scanning to detect motion and distance from the emitter, but it doesn't really detect in a 3D space. The combination of the IR scan and optical information is used by the Kinect software. Since neither the optical or the infrared sensors has a stereoscopic view, the software combines both data feeds to attempt a 3D tracking, but it's really far, far , far less 3D than you apparently believe.
Regarding tracking of individual finger motion, if you stand perfectly still and move a finger, Kinect might detect it, just as the PS Eye might detect it. But neither of the products uses sufficiently high resolution scanning to reliably detect such small motions, nor can they detect such small motions at the same time as tracking body and limb motion.
As for Australia, isn't it strange that it's the English speaking world that pays far more attention to the English speaking US tech and gaming media, that is entranced by MS? You're making my argument for me with that.
There is very, very, very little that Kinect is capable of that is intrinsic to it's hardware or impractical to do with the PSEye alone. The enhanced ability to detect motion against an indistinct background that Kinect has is based entirely on the infrared scanning – I dare say that is almost the entire reason the infrared scanning is even there since they dropped the stereoscopic scanning. If you want to directly compare Move and Kinect, that very thing is the reason the Move controller with the colored globe is there.
The optical resolution of Kinect and PSEye are identical, the PSEye scans at double the rate of Kinect. When it comes to the optical component, PSEye has Kinect beat. Neither product can track in a 3D space optically except through the use of perspective. Kinect's infrared sensor gives the distance between the motion source and the emitter, but that's it. It's not tracking in 3D it's interpolating the position based on the distance and position in the optical field of view. The PSEye can do something similar with it's own optical tracking and the 3D microphone array which can track the position of sound sources relative to the camera.
No offense, but you're sounding a little more than defensive of Kinect, which technologically is not particularly impressive, and thus far hasn't done anything that the PSEye can't do. Voice commands? Yep. Gesture command? Yep. Facial recognition? Yep. Finger tracking? Show me that actually working with Kinect outside perfect lab conditions with a highly contrasting background. But I will say that I have played EyeToy games that included sufficiently detailed tracking to show my hand shape and finger positions on the screen as I was controlling the action, so I have to say that EyeToy and PSEye both can track finger motion. But I doubt either technology can do it reliably enough to provide control input during a game that involves large movements.
Last edited by TheHighlander on 7/5/2011 1:21:56 AM
Highlander, I just don't know man… I think Sony sees this gaming environment changing much more quickly than they are even anticipating. I saved two bits of text to use later, and now is my chance…
The 1st text was by a user on Euro Gamer responding to another user.
Some interesting points are raised.
The 2nd is from a former Sony executive; equally interesting…
I am sure Sony is thinking similarly… and are aware of the threats..
————————————————————————
1]
@moritz666 – three years, four at the outside, and tablets / phones will be able to run games on a par graphically with todays titles. Take the PSP Vita as a glimpse into that future, the internals are basically doubled up from what Apple currently ships in the iPad (and will probably ship in the next iPhone and iPod Touch). In fact Apple may just jump past it in terms of raw specs next year if they do decide to go for a retina display in the iPad 3 as they'd need that sort of grunt to drive the screen.
As for the rest… why do people seem to assume that just because you're using (for instance) an iPhone that it'll be touch control only? On-live is coming to both iOS and Android this year with a bluetooth-connected controller so technically there's no reason that physical controls can't be realised. Same goes for the quality and depth of the games. While there's currently far more '5 minute' games than in-depth stuff there IS a significant chunk of high quality, more traditional gaming available and if the market for that content grows then more titles will become available over time. Let's not forget that we're only three years into this whole mobile gaming thing and compare what's available now to what was on offer two years ago…
Looking ahead we've got obvious jumps in graphics and processor power coming and Apple have already come up with a solution to get your games onto a TV (or any screen with a HDMI input for that matter) with similar solutions surely on the way from Andriod, Windows Phone etc. Storage capacities should keep expanding and we're increasingly moving to cloud-based services to sync and obtain content. Why shouldn't your phone (or tablet or media player or whatever) become a full-fledged games console replacement? Or is this just an Apple thing, would the same complaints be levelled at Microsoft building a phone that let developers port Xbox or 360 titles to it, sent that content to any DLNA-equipped screen and allowed a 360 controller to connect to the phone? That's genuine curiosity by the way as the idea of being able to take your games with you anywhere and pick up where you left off on any screen is very appealing to me personally and I'm not sure where the hostiility comes from.
————————————————————————
2]
Apple "will be the games industry" in ten years, ex-Sony boss Phil Harrison believes.
The iPhone and iPad manufacturer, if left unchecked, will rule the gaming space in a decade, Harrison told Edge.
"At this trajectory, if you extrapolate the market-share gains that they are making, forward for ten years… there's a pretty good chance that Apple will be the games industry."
Harrison's reasoning? The speed with which Apple hardware is being swiped off of shop shelves, and the growth of iOS as a viable gaming platform.
"In the proliferation of devices – you've got iPhones, iPads, iPods, which are all part of the same ecosystem; the speed at which Apple sold 15 million iPads is phenomenal," he said. "And the number one activity on an iPad, according to some reports, is games, and I think that will only continue."
Harrison also praised the ease of purchasing content on Apple devices, making acquiring games easy for the consumer. "You see something on the App Store, you click a button, the product delivers to your device. That end-to-end shopping experience, if you want to call it that, has been so elegantly built by Apple and they will continue to refine it."
Harrison was a pivotal figure within Sony, helping to launch the original PlayStation in 1996. He ascended to president of Sony Computer Entertainment's Worldwide Studios, before quitting the company in February 2008.
——————————————————————————————–
What do you think guys?
Q!
"play.experience.enjoy"
Last edited by Qubex on 7/5/2011 1:59:11 AM
Highlander, "I've been able to stand in front of my TV and gesticulate to control games since the PS2." – well, I've not. Nor has many others.
We're not really disagreeing here, I'm just trying to explain why Kinetic is the more impressive looking thing from the general audience point of view. I know nothing about the Kinetic technology. My focus is on the impression, not on the spec.
Although I must admit, it sounds a bit too simplistic to say that the Kinetic is about as capable as an average webcam (the pseye). I've never tried the kinetic, hardly *seen* it in real life even, but what I've read is that they've connected the kinetic to a PC and been able to write software for it, and found new usage for it. Surely that must mean it's capable of much more than just a cam alone.
Again, I know nothing about the actual technology, I just draw conclusions from what I read, my impressions as a regular, non kinetic user. Just like *many* others out there.
I'd like to finish with a quote, "There is no greater disaster than to underestimate the enemy".
Qubex: That's an interesting read indeed. I basically fully agree with what they say, only I firmly believe that Google will become the leader, not Apple, simply because of the accessibility.
But never mind the OS discussion, iOs or Android is of lesser importance.
Yesterday I played a fully fledged mmorpg on my mobile phone. A full, online rpg, meeting hundreds of other players in a 3D environment, with full chat and interaction. On my mobile phone! It was surreal.
How many mmorpg's are found on the ps3 yet? *one*! In this picture the consoles really appear to be some old fashioned dinosaurs, *still* focusing on simple deathmatch style multiplayer gaming, something that was introduced to gaming like… 15 years ago?
But in this matter I am more worried about the Vita. The launch lineup for Vita is, as far as I can tell, purely "yesterdays gaming". It could just as well have been a lineup for the psp.
Last edited by Beamboom on 7/5/2011 2:30:04 AM
Qubex,
Apple is building up to a big fall, so I don't see them as the future, regardless of Phil Harrison's comments. Not to mention I don't put a lot of stock in his comments anyway. Nor do I put any stock in Onlive satisfying anything but casual gaming, the platform cannot handle the video throughput or control latency.
Beamboom,
The fact that you can connect the Kinect accessory to a PC is not unique nor is the provsion of developer support. Nor does that make Kinect somehow inherently more advanced than PSEye. If you look at the technology involved, Kinect consists of a simple webcam with a microphone and an IR emitter/receiver, it can track movement in the optical frame, and use infrared to enhance motion detection and range finding. The IR system isn't 3D so Kinect cannot track spatially in 3D, the camera system does no processing of it's own, that is all handled by the Xbox 360 in software. The IR data provides better depth information than can be obtained using geometry on a purely optical feed.
The PSEye consists of a camera with the same optical resolution as Kinect, but double the scan rate, and it features a 3D array of multiple microphones rather than a single microphone. The PSEye does no processing of it's own, the rest is done in software. The depth data with the PSEye is created by the software based on the geometry in the optical field. The microphones can be used to track the position of a sound source. That's the only advantage that the Kinect system has over the PSEye on it's own. If you throw in the single Move controller, things begin to change. I believe that the PSEye can similarly be connected to a PC (I've done it) and I remember reading that Sony was producing a Move dev library for PCs as well. So… Kinect is no more or less advanced than Move, or the PSEye, both are solutions to the same issue – capturing player movement as input to a game.
My problem in all of this, Beamboom, is that although you may not have seen it 6-7 years ago on the PS2, most tech journalists did, and yet these are the same lemmings currently jumping off the cliff over how revolutionary Kinect is, when they already know that's not the case. There are millions of gamers who didn't have an EyeToy on their PS2, but you know what, that doesn't make Kinect any more advanced either. People's perceptions are important, but more so in today's world, the perceptions fed to them by the media that they read/listen to is important. If the US tech/gaming media feeds a predominantly pro-MS message, that is what is heard and repeated by many millions of people looking to others to make their minds up for them. The influence of such media extends broadly wherever English is used as a first language.
Hehe – again you focus on the technical details. I do not doubt any of it, nor do I have the knowledge to discuss it.
But the history is FULL of examples of the lesser product winning a "battle". The world is NOT rational, Highlander, nor analytic. It's emotional.
And the entire "Kinetic VS move+pseye" discussion is this simple to "your typical consumer":
Alt. 1: You use your body, hands free, to interact with the game.
Alt. 2: You hold a light stick in front of a webcam.
That's how it is perceived! No discussion about frame rate, resolutions or the number of microphones. To the general public, it really boils down to those two observations.
Or, to use a language my kid would probably have used, "the Move looks lame". The consumer has spoken.
Last edited by Beamboom on 7/5/2011 3:05:56 AM
What we appear to be saying is that consumers are not very smart. That may be so, afterall there are a lot of people on their fourth or fifth replacement 360. Either way I reject that reality and su bstitute my own. I prefer not to believe consumers are that stupid.
Ooooh – finishing off with a classic quote from mr Adam Savage. Nice Move, Highlander! 🙂
I can believe this for three words–first in market. Sony cannot afford to enter the market last like this gen. M$ rushed the 360 to get in first and capture marketshare. They took a hit on quality for that crucial headstart from which Sony is still reeling from.
Another reason is this fanboy era we now live in. Apple has proved if you build it they will come. iPhone refreshes are gobbled up every year. The same is true for consoles. Many if you stated you are not ready to upgrade, but there are millions other who are.
Sony knows it has to move first. I wouldn't put more than $20 on this rumor, however I would not be shocked if it is true.
Last edited by jaybiv on 7/5/2011 8:36:23 AM
@Beamboom
No he's right. The majority of consumers (espeically in the US) aren't very smart. A lot of them are simple-minded and don't do research on things that they buy (Bestbuy knows this so they charge over $100 to help install the PS3's freaking firmware for them).
Although this isn't exactly related to gaming, there was an experiement done in which families had to cut off their TV cable and watch Netflix (on the internet, apple tv, xbox (no PS3 for some reason)) for a whole week. The results from it were surprising: Some of them said they would rather be told what to watch instead of choose whatever show they wanted. Some even said they would rather pay $1200 a year for cable instead of the $7-8 a month for Netflix.
In general a lot of consumers buy something just because the commericals were 'cool', it was marketed non-stop, and because their friends bought it; this is THE reason why things like Call of Duty get so many sales.
Last edited by The Doom on 7/5/2011 9:31:23 AM
LOL! Beamboom, it was 4 in the morning for me and despite terrible insomnia, I was finally on the verge of unconsciousness. Quoting Mr Savage was about the best I could manage from my Android at the time.
@Beamboom
Why do you keep calling it "Kinetic"? It's Kinect. Unless they call it something else in other countries.
HOLYCRAP!! 42 thumbs up?! is that a record ?
I really hope this is just bs.
First, I'm not ready for a ps4. I love my ps3. And I'm very content with it for more years to come. Just keep giving us awesome games.
And 2, with the comment about it have motion like the kinect, that just sounds uber bad. If its controls are like the kinect it rather sounds like sony is trying to aim for the newer gaming generation. Kinda like the direction wii took.
Sony, please stick with what you do best. Don't try to emulate your competitors. You've got a winning formula, and its one that I've been a fan of for years. Please just keep sticking with the ever so faithful hardcore gaming group and don't try to nab the other types by making your console fit to them.
If anything, just give them some games to play. Don't design the console with them in mind.
( I may be mistaken but that's what ik took from the read ) so, if I was mistaken, I would appreciate it if anyone could correct me. Dear god I hope I was wrong.
PS3 already has Kinect capability, why is anyone surprised or upset about this? It's called the PSEye and the PS3 has had it for nearly 5 years now. In fact, at launch you could hook up an EyeToy and it would work. Whether the PS4 has motion control or not should be in no doubt, it will include the Move controls, or a subset of them based on the combination of a PSEye like camera and the sixaxis motion sensitive controller as the base elements of the system – just as the PS3 has featured since launch.
What ment was that it sounded like they were gonna drop the dual shock sixaxis controller altogether and go with the whole " your the controller " as the primary way to game on the ps4. But judging by your response I was incorrect at assuming that. Thank god.
I like the ps move. Cause you have the option of using it or the sixaxis.
But if the only way to control the game was "kinect like" id be rrather bummed out.
And speaking of motion control, I'm getting ready tol pick up the moves navigation controler so I can play some heavy rain via move.
Can anyone tell me if its even more sick than it is now?
I wish I could be certain, but I'm as close to certain as possible. Honestly the idea of Sony dropping the DS3 (or something very like it) controller with the PS4 is unthinkable.
There are things that Kinect can do that the PSeye cannot do so well, but some aspects of it are there.
I say if the next PS4 will have these motion control functions built in, it's alright. It doesn't hurt to have 3D on my PS3, even though when I don't use it, as long as it's free. If they start charging me extra for useless functionalities like Kinect, I'm passing.
Kinect has better depth perception because of the IR scanner.
I'm calling BS, well at least I hope it's BS because I really don't want the next gen to focus on motion control games. The Wii did it this gen and it sold incredibly well, but everyone I've talked to says the same thing: it was cool for a month or two and then they got bored of it. The PS3 on the other hand stuck to the basics and just provided a more powerful console-it included a bunch of new features sure, but the focus was the same as the previous gen. I hope the PS4 does the same.
Personally, I think Sony has seen that with the PS3, the method of making a very capable system starts with making a very powerful system, and then adding functionality as you go. They've added Move, 3D, and cloud capability – among other things – since launch. I don't see why they would alter that course, it has served them well, enabling them to go 50 yers with a single console product that has been relevant in each new media technology generated since it launched. BluRay, HDTV, downloadable/streaming movies, 3D and Cloud computing, online virtual worlds and online gaming. Sony knows a winner when it sees one, and technology that can remain current like that across many generations of components is a winner.
Edit:
…I don't see why they would alter that course, it has served them well, enabling them to go **5 years** with a single console product that has been relevant in each new media technology generated since it launched…
Catching up with my incoherent typing last night…
I like to refer to what i call the "Naughty Dog" cycle.
PSX: Crash 1, Crash 2, Crash 3(warped), CTR
PS2: Jak 1, Jak 2, Jak 3, Jak X Racing
PS3: Uncharted, Uncharted 2, Uncharted 3, ???
I see ND making a spinoff game for the ps3 before this generation is out. That means at least 2 more years.
I hope this generation lasts a long time though, the ps3 still has a lot to offer.
Looks like Uncharted Racing is due up after 3.
I think that they're more likely to do an out and out multiplayer shooter based on Uncharted than anything else – assuming that they decide not to go with a story driven part 4.
Sometimes I wonder if all the "reporting" on PS4 stuff is meant solely to keep people from buying a PS3.
Look, the PS4 is definitely coming, but it ain't in 2012. I'm sure the project exists somewhere in the minds of Sony's great thinkers. They are figuring out how to expand on the PS3 architecture in the best ways to accommodate what software will be able to achieve in the future but no there's just no way anyone is manufacturing the components this early.
The sole hardware focus of Sony will be with Vita. It would be a poor business decision to release a PS4 in 2012 and decimate their potential PS3 and Vita customer market.
Regarding your first sentence – YES!
World, it's quite obvious that the "reporters" are trying to keep people from buying the PS3. Sony has explicitly stated that the PS3 has a lot of life left and that they will continue to focus on supporting the PS3.
I think it's sensationalist headlines as well.
Complete Bull. It doesn't make any sense financially with Vita on the way and all.
There is no way we see a PS4 in 2012. However, I wouldn't discount the possibility that certain components in the PS4 are already ordered, so with regards to this article, methinks the truth lies somewhere in between. Sony says the PS3 has a lifespan of 10 years, so I'm guessing we'll see the PS4 in 2013/14 with continued support for the PS3 through 2016. Not too far-fetched, right?
It's possible that Sony is either ordering components for a new PS3 with a much lower price for 2012, or pre-ordering compoents. There was a recent story about how Apple was sucking up components from the market that would result in the delay of a new Amazon Kindle/tablet because Amazon could not get the components needed. Sony knows that they need to ensure a decent supply of components to meet their anticipated sales/production targets.
Last edited by TheHighlander on 7/4/2011 10:49:12 PM
PSX = 1994
PS2 = 2000
PS3 = 2006
PS4 = 2012?
Seems like new hardware releases every 6 years. And, FWIW, the PSX & PS2 were supported in the market 10+ years each – long after it's successor hit the market. Just observations. I have no idea if this rumor is true or not. But I refuse to ignore it could be possible just because I'm not ready for it in 2012. I guess we'll see at the next E3.
PS3 is/was far more capable at launch than the PS2 was (in a relative sense). The PS3 was also far closer to the state of the art when released in so many ways. In processor terms, the PS3 is still competitive with the systems of today, not in the GPU department perhaps. Either way, the PS3 has at least one more year before the PS4 becomes a reality on the horizon. Quite apart from anything else, the economic cycle has yet to complete the recession, and I don't see Sony launching the PS4 into that kind of economy.
So the first playstation were called psx? So THAT's where the "psxextreme" comes from? Ahaaaa – yesterday I leaned about the boomerang controller, today the first ps.
I'm catching up!
lol Beamboom xD
Highly doubt it. Heck, I'll start hating Nas if it does happen.
complete & utter bullsh**. also the guy in this ad is a giant pu*y.
Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 7/5/2011 12:44:37 AM