Sony doesn't want to be late for the PS4 launch

Nintendo already plans to launch the successor to its Wii game console, the Wii U, sometime in 2012. But if that's true, that means that Sony may not wait much longer than that to release the successor to its own Playstation 3 console.

Eurogamer reports that at a press event in London this week to promote the upcoming launch of the portable console the PS Vita, PlayStation Europe head man Jim Ryan said, "I think we would consider it undesirable to be significantly later than the competition [with the next PlayStation]."

At the same time he added, "There's still a lot of unfinished business on PS3." That likely means that Sony will continue to support its current console well beyond the launch of any successor, much like how Sony supported the PS1 and PS2 consoles well after their next-generation versions launched.

Sony launched the PS3 in 2006, one year after Microsoft launched the Xbox 360. Sony has managed to stay competitive to the Xbox 360 in Europe even with the one year head start of Microsoft's console although the Xbox 360 has consistently beaten the PS3 in terms of sales here in the US.

If Ryan and Sony keep to its word, its likely that the PS4 could launch by the end of 2013 if Nintendo sticks to its 2012 release schedule for the Wii U. With new rumors that Microsoft is eyeing a 2013 launch for the successor for the Xbox 360, we could see the next-gen console race start in earnest in the next two years.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft's Tellme not the same as Siri, as video explains

Next Story

Google+ TV ad goes in circles

30 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Im sure they were developing the PS4 right after they released PS3. Most tech companies do that - release one and work right on the next one.

I would like to see SONY and other companies take time in developing a quality product instead of getting the feeling of being left behind and rushing to get a product out of gate that's full of problems.

I would rather they not rush. But if they work hard on making sure that they give developers enough time to have a bombshell of a lanch title set, and their network adds something special and solid, it will not matter if they are a year later than the comp.

They all so probably need to deliver a product no more expensive than 399. I think that is the sweat spot for a new console that has a bunch of new bells and whistles.

[aSide]
I wonder how the harddisk shortage due to the flooding in Thailand will affect prices. Might hit Nintendo more than anyone else of they are really going ahead with launching Wii U in 2012... I imagine it will cost 299 to 249. I hope they have Wii U "enhanced versions" of current gen games ... good online support. They really need to work this out, or they will really be in bad shape...

The problem is that "normal" folk (i.e. non-techy, non-heavy-gamer) don't give a flying fork about 1080p resolution or AA or ambient occlusion, etc.

Remember, these are people who for the longest time settled for 128kbps mp3--noticeably less fidelity than CD -- people who watch Netflix instead of Blu-Ray, who watch SD cable television with a stretched aspect ratio on their 55" HDTVs, who run their 1680x1050 LCD computer display at 800x600 because of "their eyes".

You know, retards. (no offense to the DD)

Benda said,
The problem is that "normal" folk (i.e. non-techy, non-heavy-gamer) don't give a flying fork about 1080p resolution or AA or ambient occlusion, etc.

No, but they do care if the experience is obviously better, whatever the reason is.

Benda said,
The problem is that "normal" folk (i.e. non-techy, non-heavy-gamer) don't give a flying fork about 1080p resolution or AA or ambient occlusion, etc.

No, but they do care if the experience is obviously better, whatever the reason is.

Benda said,
The problem is that "normal" folk (i.e. non-techy, non-heavy-gamer) don't give a flying fork about 1080p resolution or AA or ambient occlusion, etc.

Remember, these are people who for the longest time settled for 128kbps mp3--noticeably less fidelity than CD -- people who watch Netflix instead of Blu-Ray, who watch SD cable television with a stretched aspect ratio on their 55" HDTVs, who run their 1680x1050 LCD computer display at 800x600 because of "their eyes".

You know, retards. (no offense to the DD)

The problem is content. I can have a $3000 TV that is 80" and does 1440p, but cable is rarely going to give you HD even an 1/8 of the time

"That likely means that Sony will continue to support its current console well beyond the launch of any successor, much like how Sony supported the PS1 and PS2 consoles well after their next-generation versions launched."

Yup. You can still buy PS2 games in stores. Original Xbox games disappeared from shelves about 5 years ago. Sony's "10 year life span" of consoles doesn't mean it's the only console they support.

Play a PC on an HDTV and compare it, a mid-range system destroys a PS3 (unless the game has been terribly ported!) plus supports AA to reduce edges. Skyrim and F1 2011 are good examples of this.

However, as said, it's amazing device for 2006 H/W for that price. Games developers really do pull out all the stops to squeeze all they can from the device.

imachip said,
Play a PC on an HDTV and compare it, a mid-range system destroys a PS3 (unless the game has been terribly ported!) plus supports AA to reduce edges. Skyrim and F1 2011 are good examples of this.

However, as said, it's amazing device for 2006 H/W for that price. Games developers really do pull out all the stops to squeeze all they can from the device.

Agreed. Next generation of consoles needs to support all the things PC gamers have had for years. I mean I was playing games at 1080p on a CRT back in 2003 !

Hmm.. Looks like nintendo's new system must really be something quite powerful, spec wise, since it's apparently making sony sweat. Otherwise sony would be content with milking outdated hardware till 2015.

Blackhearted said,
Hmm.. Looks like nintendo's new system must really be something quite powerful, spec wise, since it's apparently making sony sweat. Otherwise sony would be content with milking outdated hardware till 2015.

Hardware may be better, but because there are already millions of PS3s and 360s out there, most developers code for the
Least common denominator.

A 7 year product lifecycle? SImply - wow! No wonder consoles are holding back the video games market in terms of software innovation.

Breach said,
A 7 year product lifecycle? SImply - wow! No wonder consoles are holding back the video games market in terms of software innovation.

They're not. Games like Killzone 3 and Uncharted 2/3 look pretty great. Red Dead Redemption is all kinds of wonderful. Sure, it would be nice if they ran at a higher resolution but ultimately it's gameplay that matters. The aforementioned also have that in spades.

It's not like PC games are pushing the graphics envelope all that much these days either, considering the original Crysis (which actually looks fairly close on consoles) is still one of the best looking games.

What I hope to see with the PS4 is that games run at native 1080p and improvements to user interface, store and media streaming capabilities.

Well, all things considered, a high-end PC from 2006 simply isn't that high end anymore. Same with PS3. Sure developers have been pushing the envelope to make better looking games to run on that same 2006 hardware. In fact I applaud this as hardware actually forces developers to optimise and actually be creative in how they program. But. 2006 hardware can only do that much. By 2013 I'm sure we'll be hearing more and more about 4K and 1080p will be the norm.

what could they possibly do atm with the next console except makeit prettier and more pricey?
the current gen doesnt look so bad atm

DKAngel said,
what could they possibly do atm with the next console except makeit prettier and more pricey?
the current gen doesnt look so bad atm

But you could say that about every generation of consoles? There is always a need for faster, bigger and more.

Fish said,

But you could say that about every generation of consoles? There is always a need for faster, bigger and more.

As far as Nintendo is concerned, they try to bring something new to the table. They will only do a graphical upgrade for a generation, not multiple ones.
NES -> SNES: Graphical upgrade
SNES -> N64: Polygons, games were in 3D now!
N64 -> Gamecube: Graphical upgrade
Gamecube -> Wii: Motion Controls
Wii -> Wii U: Touch screen gaming

Is there going to be a point where the average gamer says my PSX or Xbox X looks good enough? I think so. For games that don't strive for realism I think this generation could continue for a while. That's why these companies need to look for other innovations.

DKAngel said,
what could they possibly do atm with the next console except makeit prettier and more pricey?
the current gen doesnt look so bad atm

Oh sure, the current generation may not look "bad", per se. But in many games it is relatively easy to spot things that DO look bad due to hardware limitations.

Blackhearted said,

Oh sure, the current generation may not look "bad", per se. But in many games it is relatively easy to spot things that DO look bad due to hardware limitations.

Graphically they're fine, but the amount of RAM is really holding the games back.

Edited by TheExperiment, Nov 26 2011, 5:20pm :

randomevent said,

Graphically they're fine, but the amount of RAM is really holding the games back.

Honestly, ram is only one of the 3 pieces holding them back. Even if they had triple the amount of ram available to video in current consoles, memory bandwidth and simply raw horsepower would still hold it back.

(on another note, damn "like" button is too easy to accidentally hit when going to reply.)

MightyJordan said,
Uh oh, to me, that sounds like it's gonna be rushed...

They can rush it and slim it down later.
Like PS -> PSone, PS2 -> PS2 Slim, PS3 -> PS3 Slim.

iron2000 said,

They can rush it and slim it down later.
Like PS -> PSone, PS2 -> PS2 Slim, PS3 -> PS3 Slim.

The "Slim PS1" came after the PS2, it was nothing more than a "see what we can do now" prototype really, I highly doubt many people bought it.

funkydude said,

The "Slim PS1" came after the PS2, it was nothing more than a "see what we can do now" prototype really, I highly doubt many people bought it.

We got one, but the PSone and PS2 were never as good at handling PS1 games as the original Playstation box. At least, from my experience with some of the games I played.

MightyJordan said,
Uh oh, to me, that sounds like it's gonna be rushed...

That's kind of Sony's business model anymore. It's a shame.

MightyJordan said,
Uh oh, to me, that sounds like it's gonna be rushed...
For this (releasing the console within a reasonable proximity to the competition) to imply that it will be rushed would depend on the assumption that the competition will be rushed. Is it assumed that the next-gen consoles from Microsoft and Nintendo will be rushed?