In case your wondering, there is heavy evidence that suggest the release of the PS4 in 2013. Some features have already been speculated such as 3D support. However it seems that Sony doesn't like money, because they are definitely going to be losing money if the information from the following article holds up.

 

http://fwd.channel5.com/gadget-show/gadget-news/playstation-4-to-be-called-orbis-coming-2013 (Note the information was received from Kotaku, given their reliability, this is already a bad sign.)

 

So lets see why the next playstation will become the underdog once more.

 

5. Unnecessary features to justify a high price tag.

 

Does Sony ever learn? It is a well acknowledged fact that the number one reason that the PS3 lost many potential buyers to the Xbox 360 is because the price of even the worst PS3 was still double that of the best Xbox 360. Why are they trying to inflate the price when that was the main reason the Xbox sold and still sells more than the Playstation? Lets look at some of the useless crap they plan on shoving in with the PS3

 

- A developer kit

Does a console really need a developer kit shipped with it by default? I'd understand if it was part of some premium package but it seems all PS4s will be shipped with one. Why? The average buyer of consoles don't plan on developing anything, that's what the PC is for. Mods are illegal on consoles so that's out of the question, the Playstation doesn't support indie games like the Xbox (due to Sony not having their own OS for computers like Microsoft) so the only people who will benefit from this are the game studios.

 

- Unnecessary processing power

One thing PS3 fanboys love to talk about is how powerful their gaming system is. However, while it is the most powerful console out there, it doesn't make any use of it's power because modern game technology can't tap into it. Fanboys like to insists that graphics are better on the PS3 however that is not the case.

 

 

They are exactly the same. The PS3 is a little brighter but the Xbox 360 has different default settings regarding lighting than the PS3. If the PS3 had it's brightness turned down or the 360 had it's brightness turned up (both done via the options/settings menus) they would truly be the exact same.

 

Plus, if the PS3 is so powerful, how come it can't run Battlefield 3 with 64 players like the PC can?

 

The PS4 seems to be sporting a similar problem, a awesomely unnecessary amount of processing power that doesn't make the console last longer (cause the PS4 will probably be out before the new Xbox) it just drives the price up to the point of ridiculousness. Due to inflation and better hardware and software, all new consoles will be significantly more expensive than their predecessors, but you can see the PS4 offering less bang for you buck like it's older brother.

 

4. No backwards compatibility, again.

 

Once again, Sony doesn't learn. Another reason why people flocked to the Xbox 360 over the PS3 is because the PS3 didn't initially offer backwards compatibility. This is EXTREMELY important for a console when it is first released due to the limited selection of games for the first year and the fact that people from the previous consoles will still be catching up to get the new one. Even after the first year, people still like playing old games out of pure nostalgia. You shouldn't have to wait for a port or remake before you can play a classic game. For firetrucks sake you can play the original Halo on the Xbox 360 and this was before they released Anniversary Edition. Not much to say here.

 

3. You have to be online to boot games

 

Ok, seriously WTF? Even the most die hard playstation fanboy could not possible justify this. Believe it or not Sony, a lot of people don't have access to the internet most of the day. Plus, what's even the point of this if the game has no online multiplayer? What if the network goes down (again) even for scheduled maintenance? What if my internet goes down? There is no excuse or need for this at all.

 

2. Rumors of the need to pay for online

 

This isn't a really big deal, for me at least. However the PS3s one trump card, the secret weapon of the console wars was that the PSN was free and Xbox Live was not. And then you have number 3. Apparently paying for online is the same thing as paying to start your game. Why don't we just go back to arcades if this is how Sony intends on making money? It's not really a big deal, but paired with number 3 it gains number 2 on my list.

 

1. Sony intends on making it harder to play pre-owned games

 

No, just no. From a business standpoint it makes sense as Sony doesn't make a single dime off of pre-owned games. However from a customer standpoint this is a nightmare. The reason why pre-owned games sell so well is because they are useful. Games are overpriced these days. Some games are terrible and aren't worth 60 dollars, other games are old and outdated and those that missed it when it was new and state of the art might want to try it, other games simply aren't available new anymore and if they are, then they are often worth more than they did when they came out and some people simply can't afford to pay 60 dollars every time a game they want comes out.

 

Sony plans on limiting the content of used games and forcing people to pay a fee to unlock it's full features. Your essentially paying for a demo of a game if you buy used. So, wouldn't it make more sense to pay full price if a game is also available new? There is also speculation that certain games will be blocked from being played used also. This is probably the worst possible thing they could of done. Like the need to be online just to start your game this is inexcusable. Used games are a HUGE part of the video game market. Some copies change owners multiple times.

 

 

That's pretty much it. While the PS4 will still sell, a lot of people are going to be unhappy with their purchase. I can't even imagine how the CEO of Sony itself could possibly justify some of these problems without spilling out total bullshit.

Write what you planned to say in a nutshell. I'm curious to see what else you have to say.

 

Hm... okay, I'll try. I honestly can't remember a bunch, but maybe it'll come back as I type.

First of all, about the whole 'processing power' thing. Sony screwed themselves over by making a really powerful system that isn't very easy to develop for. I believe it was the creators of inFAMOUS who mentioned that they were using around 10% of the PS3's power for the first game, and that they had managedto get that up to 40% for the sequel. When you develop exclusive titles for a system, it should NOT be an ACHIEVEMENT to be able to use less than half of the consoles power.

Another thing (Relating to the high price tag) Is that Sony has gone on record saying that they believe that they are making premium products that deserve a premium price. They have actually said that they believe having a high price will ATTRACT buyers (When talking about the Vita) With an attitude like that (An attitude that seems to have ignored, you know, the first four years of the PS3 existence...) it would basically be impossible to release a Playstation console with a low price. Sony has far too large of an ego.

About the backwards compatibility, I feel like Sony is doing that more because old PS games won't fit into their new game order, with the no used games allowed policy and whatnot. Think about it, as far as Sony is concerned, the only legitimate way to get an old game is to DOWNLOAD it. Beyond that, if you don't support backwards compatibility, you can release badly emulated ports of said games for an inflated price (See PS1 and PS2 games on the PSN store) so, hooray for more money, I guess? I mean, this IS the company that allowed PSP owners to buy back games they already own at a discount.

And yeah, I never understood why businesses assume that everybody must, like them, have a 50 inch widescreen TV in every room (As well as an 100 inch 3D TV in your living area) and a superb internet connection, among all their other expensive gadgets. It's gotten pretty ridiculous. And yet again, all of this is done in the name of PIRACY. And, as I repeat the cries of many ebfore me, pirates are the only people these measures DON'T affect. Illegitimate copies can be modified to get around this annoying stuff, but if you want your legitimate copy to stay legitimate, you can't do any such. It's weird, if I didn't know better, I'd say that pirates are just an excuse for all this recent human right infringing garbage. And I don't know better. All of this anti-piracy stuff is a pretty lamely disguised attempt to make businesses profits iron clad, by removing such HORRIBLE things as competition, and users.

And honestly, I can't really figure out why videogame online services are considered services in the first place. You already need oto provide an internet connection to access it. Sure there's maintenance, but considering a person probably just dropped 300-600 bucks on the consoles, I don't see how that's an issue. After all, with online purchases, you eliminate the middle man. Isn't an extar 60% profit worth a little maintenance? If an individual game wants to charge for online, then by all means, but it's silly to charge for a feature that LET'S PEOPLE BUY THINGS FROM YOU. And honestly, Sony's current plan is simple a lot better than that, except any games you buy with a Playstation + discount becomes completely unusable once the subscription runs out.

So yeah, Sony kind of sucks at this.

Wait, I've got it! Just get Valve in there! They're good at NOT screwing over their customers, and they're rich because of it! Perfect!

And while we're on the topic of crazy solutions, wouldn't reducing the average price of a videogame to 30 dollars destroy the used game industry much more quickly, and more permanently? Think about it, once a game is worth 30 dollars, you're not going to get much credit for turning it in, and the price drop from used games wouldn't be very noticeable.

But of course, that would involve taking a loss. And you can't take a loss to beat a loss, no you must only gain! And besides, it's not like cheaper games would improve sales or anything~

 

Eh, that's not exactly what I wrote, but it's close enough.

Blu-ray is cool and all but it doesn't make a difference in gameplay. The only advantage that blue ray offers is more space on the disk and considering that some PS3 games actually require you to go through a lengthy install, they don't even speed up load times. More space on the disk doesn't even matter anymore considering directly downloading games to your console is starting to become more common. Blu-ray came too late to make a major difference. It took until the end of 2011 for HD DVDs to become obsolete (with Battlefield 3 requiring two disks)

 

Also the 360 has sold more than the PS3 and the Wii has sold more than the PS3 and 360 combined. The 360 also has the largest online gaming network, probably because unlike PSN, Xbox Live is good for more than just playing games which as a recent Yahoo article (who's link feels like not working) put is now more widely used for general entertainment than games and is starting to become a popular family console just because of it's fantastic online abilities.

 

They had to downscale Final Fantasy to 720p on the Xbox 360. While the PlayStation 3 was able to enjoy 1080p.

They had to downscale Final Fantasy to 720p on the Xbox 360. While the PlayStation 3 was able to enjoy 1080p.

 

And the PS3 had only one disc, and the install was not SLOW AT ALL. I could breeze through it, and some games don't even have it. Man, this has become a fan-boy argument, huh, Sora?

They had to downscale Final Fantasy to 720p on the Xbox 360. While the PlayStation 3 was able to enjoy 1080p.

 

Which is weird. Deus Ex Human Revolution can only reach 720p on the PS3, while 1080p is possible on the 360 version.

Which is weird. Deus Ex Human Revolution can only reach 720p on the PS3, while 1080p is possible on the 360 version.

 

The PlayStation 3 can fully handle all games in 1080p.

The PlayStation 3 can fully handle all games in 1080p.

 

Uh... yeah. I'm aware. I bought Deus Ex for myself on the PS3, and for a friend on the 360. For whatever reason, the 360 version supports 1080p, the PS3 does not.

Uh... yeah. I'm aware. I bought Deus Ex for myself on the PS3, and for a friend on the 360. For whatever reason, the 360 version supports 1080p, the PS3 does not.

 

Probably something wrong with your PS3 or the actual game itself.

Probably something wrong with your PS3 or the actual game itself.

 

...

No. The back of the case says it supports 720p in one, 1080p on the other.

...

You're stubborn, aren't you

...

No. The back of the case says it supports 720p in one, 1080p on the other.

...

You're stubborn, aren't you

 

As I said the "game itself" referring to the developers chose not to have it in 1080p on the PS3. Doesn't really concern me though as I don't even like that game. What matters to me is that the games I like are in 1080p which they are.

As I said the "game itself" referring to the developers chose not to have it in 1080p on the PS3. Doesn't really concern me though as I don't even like that game. What matters to me is that the games I like are in 1080p which they are.

 

Then I'm sort of confused as to what your original point was...

What's the big deal about Final Fantasy being downgraded when the reverse can clearly happen? It's all a matter of which console the game is primarily developed for. Clearly the two systems are incompatible.

But... why does 1080p matter at all.? What does definition matter, when it comes down to it...

And what point are you trying to make? I've gotta know! It's really frustrating me, and making me feel like I missed something! Am I not understanding you properly? Or are you not understanding me? Or some other third thing?

I demand clarity!

Then I'm sort of confused as to what your original point was...

What's the big deal about Final Fantasy being downgraded when the reverse can clearly happen? It's all a matter of which console the game is primarily developed for. Clearly the two systems are incompatible.

But... why does 1080p matter at all.? What does definition matter, when it comes down to it...

And what point are you trying to make? I've gotta know! It's really frustrating me, and making me feel like I missed something! Am I not understanding you properly? Or are you not understanding me? Or some other third thing?

I demand clarity!

 

1080p is very important. Especially if you have a big TV or 1080p TV. There is a massive difference between 576p, 720p and 1080p.

Then I'm sort of confused as to what your original point was...

What's the big deal about Final Fantasy being downgraded when the reverse can clearly happen? It's all a matter of which console the game is primarily developed for. Clearly the two systems are incompatible.

But... why does 1080p matter at all.? What does definition matter, when it comes down to it...

And what point are you trying to make? I've gotta know! It's really frustrating me, and making me feel like I missed something! Am I not understanding you properly? Or are you not understanding me? Or some other third thing?

I demand clarity!

 

1080p is very important. Especially if you have a big TV or 1080p TV. There is a massive difference between 576p, 720p and 1080p.

 

You two sure like to debate a lot don't you? http://kh13.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/happy.png

And the PS3 had only one disc, and the install was not SLOW AT ALL. I could breeze through it, and some games don't even have it. Man, this has become a fan-boy argument, huh, Sora?

 

Probably something wrong with your PS3 or the actual game itself.

 

Hippocrates. Calling people fanboys and then pulling facts or excuses out of your asses.

 

I can play this game too, Chuck Norris used an Xbox controller to beat up Adolf Hitler and a PS3 was responsible for 9/11.

 

Also, 1080p only makes a difference if the game is optimized for 1080p. If the game is meant to play in 720p and you try to play it in 1080p the game will actually look worse due to being stretched out and zoomed in a bit.

Edited March 31, 201213 yr by Fredfredbug4

Hm... okay, I'll try. I honestly can't remember a bunch, but maybe it'll come back as I type.

First of all, about the whole 'processing power' thing. Sony screwed themselves over by making a really powerful system that isn't very easy to develop for. I believe it was the creators of inFAMOUS who mentioned that they were using around 10% of the PS3's power for the first game, and that they had managedto get that up to 40% for the sequel. When you develop exclusive titles for a system, it should NOT be an ACHIEVEMENT to be able to use less than half of the consoles power.

Yeah it's pretty funny, they boast about having the most powerful gaming system and then call for celebration whenever they make a game that doesn't use up all of the consoles power.

 

Another thing (Relating to the high price tag) Is that Sony has gone on record saying that they believe that they are making premium products that deserve a premium price. They have actually said that they believe having a high price will ATTRACT buyers (When talking about the Vita) With an attitude like that (An attitude that seems to have ignored, you know, the first four years of the PS3 existence...) it would basically be impossible to release a Playstation console with a low price. Sony has far too large of an ego.

About the backwards compatibility, I feel like Sony is doing that more because old PS games won't fit into their new game order, with the no used games allowed policy and whatnot. Think about it, as far as Sony is concerned, the only legitimate way to get an old game is to DOWNLOAD it. Beyond that, if you don't support backwards compatibility, you can release badly emulated ports of said games for an inflated price (See PS1 and PS2 games on the PSN store) so, hooray for more money, I guess? I mean, this IS the company that allowed PSP owners to buy back games they already own at a discount.

It's not necessarily the idea of paying more, people pay for Xbox LIVE despite a number of free options outside of the xbox. Generally the idea is that people don't see the value in what they are paying for which as you know is what Sony is doing.

 

And yeah, I never understood why businesses assume that everybody must, like them, have a 50 inch widescreen TV in every room (As well as an 100 inch 3D TV in your living area) and a superb internet connection, among all their other expensive gadgets. It's gotten pretty ridiculous. And yet again, all of this is done in the name of PIRACY. And, as I repeat the cries of many ebfore me, pirates are the only people these measures DON'T affect. Illegitimate copies can be modified to get around this annoying stuff, but if you want your legitimate copy to stay legitimate, you can't do any such. It's weird, if I didn't know better, I'd say that pirates are just an excuse for all this recent human right infringing garbage. And I don't know better. All of this anti-piracy stuff is a pretty lamely disguised attempt to make businesses profits iron clad, by removing such HORRIBLE things as competition, and users.

Music and movie piracy cost the industries billions of dollars a year, game piracy is extremely insignificant. CD codes that you have to type in or are coded on the disk have proven to be enough to stop almost all game piracy and they don't drive the prices up at all. It really is a pathetic excuse to do stupid things.

And honestly, I can't really figure out why videogame online services are considered services in the first place. You already need oto provide an internet connection to access it. Sure there's maintenance, but considering a person probably just dropped 300-600 bucks on the consoles, I don't see how that's an issue. After all, with online purchases, you eliminate the middle man. Isn't an extar 60% profit worth a little maintenance? If an individual game wants to charge for online, then by all means, but it's silly to charge for a feature that LET'S PEOPLE BUY THINGS FROM YOU. And honestly, Sony's current plan is simple a lot better than that, except any games you buy with a Playstation + discount becomes completely unusable once the subscription runs out.

So yeah, Sony kind of sucks at this.

 

 

 

Wait, I've got it! Just get Valve in there! They're good at NOT screwing over their customers, and they're rich because of it! Perfect!

And while we're on the topic of crazy solutions, wouldn't reducing the average price of a videogame to 30 dollars destroy the used game industry much more quickly, and more permanently? Think about it, once a game is worth 30 dollars, you're not going to get much credit for turning it in, and the price drop from used games wouldn't be very noticeable.

But of course, that would involve taking a loss. And you can't take a loss to beat a loss, no you must only gain! And besides, it's not like cheaper games would improve sales or anything~

 

Eh, that's not exactly what I wrote, but it's close enough.

 

If valve ran everything about games then we would be in good shape.

Hippocrates. Calling people fanboys and then pulling facts or excuses out of your asses.

 

I can play this game too, Chuck Norris used an Xbox controller to beat up Adolf Hitler and a PS3 was responsible for 9/11.

 

Also, 1080p only makes a difference if the game is optimized for 1080p. If the game is meant to play in 720p and you try to play it in 1080p the game will actually look worse due to being stretched out and zoomed in a bit.

 

okay, here's the problem. This 'Orbis' crap has never been announced by Sony, as they don't answer to rumors. So all of this can only be counted as RUMORS. Nothing more. There's nothing wrong with either the PS3 or 360. They're both great, and have their share of great exclusive games. The 360 has Halo, the PS3 has Uncharted, etc. It all depends on which games you want to play. Xbox has payed online, but it's better, but PS3 has free online. This argument will go on and on. GET OVER IT. There will always be people who like the PS3. You can't change their opinion. Same with 360. Just stop bull-crapping, everyone.

okay, here's the problem. This 'Orbis' crap has never been announced by Sony, as they don't answer to rumors. So all of this can only be counted as RUMORS. Nothing more. There's nothing wrong with either the PS3 or 360. They're both great, and have their share of great exclusive games. The 360 has Halo, the PS3 has Uncharted, etc. It all depends on which games you want to play. Xbox has payed online, but it's better, but PS3 has free online. This argument will go on and on. GET OVER IT. There will always be people who like the PS3. You can't change their opinion. Same with 360. Just stop bull-crapping, everyone.

 

I'm not trying to change people's opinions. I'm presenting facts and letting people base their opinion off of them. Whether they like the facts or not is their problem. However, I will not let people waltz in here and state things that are proven to be incorrect.

Edited March 31, 201213 yr by Fredfredbug4

I'm guessing these are rumors, but if they aren't... I hope KHIII isn't on this system. O.o

There were other examples that I could find. I chose Crysis given that it was designed for the PC first and was ported directly to the 360 and the PS3 which would prevent any bias caused from a 360 game being ported to the PS3 and vice versa. When games are ported they are done with optimal performance which is the same for xbox 360 and PS3.

 

indeed some games are done with optimal performance but some game companies dont care bout optimal performance, they only care about getting a game to Xbox360 and PS3 and having it out on the market so that they can make more money out of it. But this argument is for a different time.

 

 

Then you should probably try reading it again.

 

I have read the it again and you are right. They dont plan to make it backwards capable. My memoir is getting worst everyday and im only 18

 

I could not get what you were trying to say here, please clarify.

 

when they did emulations for the ps2 on the ps3 it was done with hardware, not software. The early ps3 contain the ps2 Emotion Engines core that would power the ps2 games. so i had a ps2 within the ps3. and of course with this comes more cost, what means more cost on the consumer. Although the the 3rd and 4th (i think) gen of ps3 was able to play ps2. They was only able to do it because of software emulation. the extent of what id could do i dont know and i dont think it extended that much but it did not last.

 

Now to be able to power a ps3 on a software emulation using the ps4 hardware would be inpossible in my eyes (but i been wrong) so they would have to had even more hardware to the ps4 to make it play ps3. what again cost more money...

 

Also sorry for the late response but i was up at my house up north with no internet

dude sony what the heck, WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS TO US, I wish i could play all my ps2 games on my ps3 that would be awesome! and alot of people agree, and this has been called for change within the next system, so why are you ignoring our claims? and why the hell are you making it impossible to play used games on it? like seriously sony... why

 

dude sony what the heck, WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS TO US, I wish i could play all my ps2 games on my ps3 that would be awesome! and alot of people agree, and this has been called for change within the next system, so why are you ignoring our claims? and why the hell are you making it impossible to play used games on it? like seriously sony... why

 

Um, doesn't the origional PS3 have backward capability with PS2 games? I'm pretty sure that was confirmed long ago. I don't see what's to complain about.

Um, doesn't the origional PS3 have backward capability with PS2 games? I'm pretty sure that was confirmed long ago. I don't see what's to complain about.

 

some do, many don't.

Um, doesn't the origional PS3 have backward capability with PS2 games? I'm pretty sure that was confirmed long ago. I don't see what's to complain about.

 

some do, many don't.

 

The first couple of PlayStation 3's did. The old bulky small hard drive ones.