Kotaku Rumor: Next Playstation codenamed 'Orbis', 2013, AMD CPU

[playXray]

It's hard to see how new consoles will fit into the pattern that previous consoles have. When I got my original PlayStation, it was much more powerful that most of my mates' computers. The same thing happened with the PlayStation 2, only less so. When the PS3 came out, it really wasn't that much better than most high end gaming machines at the time - I remember seeing Uncharted and being really disappointed at how much aliasing there was.

Consoles seem to be becoming more and more like fixed setup PCs with custom OSs, crushed into a small box. That's pretty much what an Xbox 360 is anyway. If that's the way they're going, it will become harder and harder to justify buying one, when you could just buy a small PC and stick it under your TV. This also makes the supposed choice of an AMD CPU for the PS4 hard to swallow - would Sony do away with their one USP*, considering how much they've spent developing it? Then again, the PS3 hasn't really done that well this gen, especially compared to the PS2, and a lot of that fault has been blamed on the Cell.

Either way, I'm almost certain to buy a PS4 when it comes out - unless there's no PS3 backwards compatability in which case I'll just stick to my PS3 and PC gaming.

*EDIT: Sorry, forgot about blu-ray for a second there!

[HawkMan]

uh, what?

The PS3 GPU is a modified 7x series nVidia card, released a while after 8x series were already on the market.

The PS3 GPU was an afterthought, it wasn't supposed to have one, the 360 however was between half to one generation ahead

[HawkMan]

Personally I don't see too much issue with the DRM in console games IF they bring the prices down maybe ?/$10 people are more than happy to buy games on Steam, why would consoles work any differently just because you hold the disc.

Regarding the 1080p 3D that would indeed be a nice option, however unlike you Larry I already think that some of the games out there look great in 3D. GT5, SSHD, Ico/SOTC, Uncharted 3 and more recently Sly Cooper all look good I feel. KZ3 looks okay but can sometimes look a bit grainy in my opinion.

I wouldn't except prices to go down, production costs are getting astronomical for games and still rising, and they're actually cheaper in the store compared to what they were. while they sell a lot more it's not entirely balancing out. and the only reason they make games in the first place is to make money. Add in inflation and all that and games, are half to a quarter of the cost they used to be when I was buying a few games every now and then as a kid.

if kids where expected to fork out as much of their relative wealth today for a game today as I was then, they'd have heart attacks and go pirate, well they do that anyway. Yet their games, have longer stories far higher graphical fidelity not to mention sound. though arguably a lot of them lacks "soul".we where expected to play the same game and same levels over and over and over again

[DirtyLarry Veteran]

Regarding the 1080p 3D that would indeed be a nice option, however unlike you Larry I already think that some of the games out there look great in 3D. GT5, SSHD, Ico/SOTC, Uncharted 3 and more recently Sly Cooper all look good I feel. KZ3 looks okay but can sometimes look a bit grainy in my opinion.

I am not sure if I ever asked you, but what size is your 3DTV? I am wondering if that plays a role in it all. I have a 55" 3D capable TV, so wondering if that has anything to do with it.

I also was a graphic designer for about 10 years of my career, primarily doing nothing but Photoshop design work for the web, so I have always been very aware of resolution as a result. So I admit I am probably a bit more sensitive to it all then someone who has never done design, etc.

[AbandonedTrolley]

I wouldn't except prices to go down, production costs are getting astronomical for games and still rising, and they're actually cheaper in the store compared to what they were. while they sell a lot more it's not entirely balancing out. and the only reason they make games in the first place is to make money. Add in inflation and all that and games, are half to a quarter of the cost they used to be when I was buying a few games every now and then as a kid.

if kids where expected to fork out as much of their relative wealth today for a game today as I was then, they'd have heart attacks and go pirate, well they do that anyway. Yet their games, have longer stories far higher graphical fidelity not to mention sound. though arguably a lot of them lacks "soul".we where expected to play the same game and same levels over and over and over again

Indeed, I have my Japanese import copy of Gran Turismo for the PS1 from 15 years ago (1997), it still has it's price tag on of ?60 that's about twice the price that most games hit NOW. According to an inflation calculator ?60 in 1997 is worth ?88.20 right now.

I am not sure if I ever asked you, but what size is your 3DTV? I am wondering if that plays a role in it all. I have a 55" 3D capable TV, so wondering if that has anything to do with it.

I also was a graphic designer for about 10 years of my career, primarily doing nothing but Photoshop design work for the web, so I have always been very aware of resolution as a result. So I admit I am probably a bit more sensitive to it all then someone who has never done design, etc.

Could quite possibly be down to the size, mine is only 47" so a fair bit smaller than yours.

[Kreuger]

Indeed, I have my Japanese import copy of Gran Turismo for the PS1 from 15 years ago (1997), it still has it's price tag on of ?60 that's about twice the price that most games hit NOW. According to an inflation calculator ?60 in 1997 is worth ?88.20 right now.

You're talking about a Jap Import. They're always more expensive. Same goes for music. I remember paying like $30-40 for PS2 games. PS3 games are at least $50. Even COD Black Ops is still $50 and it's already just over a year old. That's ridiculous. I dont remember what PS1 games cost because I had a modchip and paid 5 bucks for a lot of my games.

[playXray]

I paid ?49.99 for Resident Evil 2 on day of release! I finished it the same evening too.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

I am not sure if I ever asked you, but what size is your 3DTV? I am wondering if that plays a role in it all. I have a 55" 3D capable TV, so wondering if that has anything to do with it.

Could quite possibly be down to the size, mine is only 47" so a fair bit smaller than yours.

You know what they say about size, it matters.

[AbandonedTrolley]

You know what they say about size, it matters.

The designated hole could take no more than 47"

[Belazor]

Indeed, I have my Japanese import copy of Gran Turismo for the PS1 from 15 years ago (1997), it still has it's price tag on of ?60 that's about twice the price that most games hit NOW. According to an inflation calculator ?60 in 1997 is worth ?88.20 right now.

Games in Norway cost ?65 (599 NOK) in stores, and they have done so ever since I got into gaming with the SNES. I'm glad I got out before they removed digital media from the import tax exemption list :p

It amuses me greatly to see people complain about having to pay ?39.99 here in the UK :rofl:

[HawkMan]

Pfft. I used to play 700 or so for SNES games

[Vandalsquad]

Games since the megadrive and snes are the same price as games are now, games now are probably cheaper more then anything.. Also why AMD core? Because they landed the GPU side of things? AMD chips are horrible compared to Intel. Price maybe?.. :/

[The Teej]

Games since the megadrive and snes are the same price as games are now, games now are probably cheaper more then anything.. Also why AMD core? Because they landed the GPU side of things? AMD chips are horrible compared to Intel. Price maybe?.. :/

Guarantee you a similarly specced AMD console will beat a similarly specced Intel PC without a doubt. Yes, Intel are nicer, but when you've got one company being able to do a whole SOC when the time comes, without the need for a separate manufacturer, it's going to cut costs massively. Plus, AMD CPUs do usually play nicer with AMD GPUs.

[Salutary7]

They don't need to use the fastest CPUs in the world, so it doesn't really matter that they didn't use Intel. AMD is a natural choice since it reduces the number of hardware sources they have to deal with. It also allows them to more easily optimize away CPU-GPU bottlenecks in the design.

[migo]

It'll also give AMD a boost on the PC side. Since they're supplying the GPU for each of the next gen consoles (and 2 of the 3 current gen ones), along with the DirectX for PS4 rumour, it'll make far more sense to design games on AMD first, whether the lead platform is a console or the PC. It'll also start making sense to design for AMD CPUs rather than Intel. Bulldozer is supposed to have all this potential but programs aren't making use of it, but the multi-core design is already what PS3 devs have needed to learn to work with for a while.

For AMD, this could be the thing to turn things around for them, and for Sony, they probably got a great deal from AMD and didn't have to contribute to the research and development the way IBM got them to do with Cell. It's a good arrangement for both of them. Sony probably feels burned by IBM and doesn't want to do the PPC route again, and the lack of built in AA support in the RSX also held the PS3 back compared to the 360.

It'll be interesting to see if in a few years Intel will still have the gaming CPU crown as a result of this deal.