Playstation 4

If you believe Edge, the PS4 is very PC-like in terms of specs and easy to work with according to developers. This is a far cry from the PS3's weird setup.

If both of the next consoles are PC-centric, it's basically console makers levelling the playing field between PCs and consoles. The days of delayed PC ports may very well be dead and buried. It also means "exclusive" PS3 games will have a greater chance of seeing the PC since porting would be a lot more lateral. Uncharted 4 on the PC six months after the console version? That would be neat.

It occurs to me that the only measurable difference between a Steam box, a PS4 and a Xbox 720 would be the back end operating system and the interface. We are well and truly stepping into a new period where the guts are similar and services are king. Very much like cell phones.

shoptroll wrote:

I'm going to laugh if it's a press event about Playstation Suite on iOS.

https://twitter.com/KazHiraiCEO/status/297126707536740354

All theore important for them to have a world class, seamless online experience. That has always been a stumbling point for them in the past.

This sounds like a natural evolution. And, I think, one that should benefit the consumer. You can now choose the platform that provides you with the best service, since my guess is they know that paying monthly subscriptions for the value added service is a better profit model than the "tech-bells-and-whistles" of the last generation. Again this is supportive of your Cellphone analogy. Many follow on questions. If "exclusive" games are not the draw to get you to by a certain console how will that new environment affect the quality of games. Does "big budget" go away?

I think big budget games are actually a little easier to swallow if the cost of getting running on multiple platforms is less. Pulling numbers out of my ass, but if I can increase my game budget 15% and double or triple my potential market, that's an easier pill to swallow. It seems like it's only been the past three years that "easy" ports between the 360 and PS3 have really been happening and that's more thanks to middle-wear than anything else.

Certis wrote:

If you believe Edge, the PS4 is very PC-like in terms of specs and easy to work with according to developers. This is a far cry from the PS3's weird setup.

If both of the next consoles are PC-centric, it's basically console makers levelling the playing field between PCs and consoles. The days of delayed PC ports may very well be dead and buried. It also means "exclusive" PS3 games will have a greater chance of seeing the PC since porting would be a lot more lateral. Uncharted 4 on the PC six months after the console version? That would be neat.

It occurs to me that the only measurable difference between a Steam box, a PS4 and a Xbox 720 would be the back end operating system and the interface. We are well and truly stepping into a new period where the guts are similar and services are king. Very much like cell phones.

All this is true but at the same time your going to have Sony and Microsoft still paying sh*t tons of money to make a lot of great games (Uncharted, Gears of War, The Last of Us, Heavy Rain) console exclusive.

I'm also curious how much developers will be able to get out of these "PC like specs" without the overhead of a big OS (Windows 7) and being able to code to a very specific configuration instead of having to code with thousands of different PC configurations in mind.

It depends in who's interest each thing happens. Exclusives only really benefit the platform holder for the exclusive (i.e. MS with a 360 exclusive game), but the publisher needs to make up the difference somehow, and the gamers (and potential purchasers) on other platforms are left out.

Something I'm trying to keep in the back of my mind with all the next-generation talk is that there's a period of multi-generation games, where you would get PS2/PS3 and xbox/xbox360 version, with varying levels of fidelity and features. Different developers are going to approach it in different ways, and with different motivations.

Certis wrote:

I think big budget games are actually a little easier to swallow if the cost of getting running on multiple platforms is less.

On the flip side, the QA budget expands with each platform you add. Not to mention certification costs and requirements.

Certis wrote:

It occurs to me that the only measurable difference between a Steam box, a PS4 and a Xbox 720 would be the back end operating system and the interface. We are well and truly stepping into a new period where the guts are similar and services are king. Very much like cell phones.

While this is true, I would be surprised if Feb20 has much to say about the soft features of the console. Those are going to be in flux right up to the day of release, and thus probably will be detailed at E3 or some later event. Since they'll be kicking off to manufacturing pretty soon, they have their hardware close to locked down, so that's what we'll be hearing about. Console specs, some maybe a new controller, and some game announcements to go along with.

JohnKillo wrote:
shoptroll wrote:

I'm going to laugh if it's a press event about Playstation Suite on iOS.

https://twitter.com/KazHiraiCEO/status/297126707536740354

Whew, it's a parody account... Ok then.

Certis wrote:

If you believe Edge, the PS4 is very PC-like in terms of specs and easy to work with according to developers. This is a far cry from the PS3's weird setup.

If both of the next consoles are PC-centric, it's basically console makers levelling the playing field between PCs and consoles. The days of delayed PC ports may very well be dead and buried. It also means "exclusive" PS3 games will have a greater chance of seeing the PC since porting would be a lot more lateral. Uncharted 4 on the PC six months after the console version? That would be neat.

It occurs to me that the only measurable difference between a Steam box, a PS4 and a Xbox 720 would be the back end operating system and the interface. We are well and truly stepping into a new period where the guts are similar and services are king. Very much like cell phones.

All things considered, if we end up with a similar architecture across devices, the network is going to be the selling point. It's the reason I continue to choose Live for games vs PSN, and in a world where Steam is pushing out a device soon, given the choices, I know many GWJ users would opt for a Steam box over both of the others.

The other concern is that owners of other systems are going to be much harder to sway in the upcoming cycle than they were during this one. With achievements and friends setup, I know Live has a decent lock on their users, as well as Steam on theirs. I really hope PSN gets some upgrades soon, speed- and feature-wise.

Certis wrote:

If you believe Edge, the PS4 is very PC-like in terms of specs and easy to work with according to developers. This is a far cry from the PS3's weird setup.

If both of the next consoles are PC-centric, it's basically console makers levelling the playing field between PCs and consoles. The days of delayed PC ports may very well be dead and buried. It also means "exclusive" PS3 games will have a greater chance of seeing the PC since porting would be a lot more lateral. Uncharted 4 on the PC six months after the console version? That would be neat.

It occurs to me that the only measurable difference between a Steam box, a PS4 and a Xbox 720 would be the back end operating system and the interface. We are well and truly stepping into a new period where the guts are similar and services are king. Very much like cell phones.

Ports are still going to be just as hard (or just as easy, depending on who you talk to). The switch from PPC to amd64 on consoles doesn't change the fundamental fact that PC games are written against common abstraction layers while console games are coded specifically for the machine.

The consoles will also have specific optimizations that PC developers can't take for granted. For example PS4 and Xbox games will take advantage of the unified memory architecture and use both CPU and GPU to solve a particular task. The 8 Jaguar cores and 18 CU are each better at different kind of data crunching, but because they have access to the same pool of memory they can easily collaborate on a task. On a PC you have very powerful components but their modular nature means they don't communicate that easily.

Games being coded for specific console architectures is the exact same situation we have today but they run so easily on PC's because the consoles are old and outdated. The jump in hardware requirements for next gen, plus the cost of abstracting those games to run on common Windows hardware, will not paint a pretty picture for the PC market at first.

You bring up phones on your post and that's a good example. Android and iOS devices run on the same architecture, sometimes even on the same chips, but what really matters when porting is the developer tools and SDK made available to developers. Those tools are still going to be very different between PC and consoles.

You're also not likely to see Sony games on a PC. I think it'd be a smart move for Sony actually to sell PC games (and perhaps even offer Cross Buy functionality between PC/PS3/PS4/Vita games) but it looks doubtful. They'd have to take that step before they start selling their own games on a PC. You'll play Uncharted Golden Abyss on an iPhone before you play Uncharted 4 on a PC.

Excellent points, Massa. I'm primarily basing the assertion on the documented cases from early in the console gen when porting Xbox/360 games was significantly easier than the PS2/3 because the architecture was closer to the PC. With all systems using more PC-ish parts, it will make it relatively easier to port things than it was with the PS3. I understand middleware has a role to play in that too.

As far as Sony games on a PC goes, I'm not sure if the old mentality of exclusives is going to stick like it used to. Putting your platform on an island and hoarding a few exclusive games might move some hardware, but things like Crossplay with the Vita tells me Sony is realizing the audience wants more ways to get to their content. There's some of that in their PlaystationMobile initiative too, spreading the brand around to non-Sony platforms. I could see a day where Sony releases PC versions of their games through a Sony Digital Store of some kind. Microsoft has been trying (and largely failing) to do similar with GFW and the whole XBOX Market Place initiatives.

The PS3 and the 360 are neck and neck in global installed base, I don't know how much of an impact exclusives has on that anymore. To look at the Android/iPhone analogy again, I think there comes a point where the game libraries are so vast it becomes a secondary buying consideration to other features like interface, services and price.

Going to be an interesting time this year no matter how it shakes out.

Sony has been putting a bit more emphasis on SOE in the last few years. Who knows, maybe less MMO style games might also find their way to PC.

Certis wrote:

It occurs to me that the only measurable difference between a Steam box, a PS4 and a Xbox 720 would be the back end operating system and the interface. We are well and truly stepping into a new period where the guts are similar and services are king. Very much like cell phones.

Since PC gaming clearly isn't as dead as it was claimed to be a few years ago, I wonder then what the compelling reason will be to buy one of these new consoles for gaming enthusiasts who already have a top-of-the-line PC? Exclusives, maybe, but it seems like they'd have to something better than "Popular Franchise version n+1", especially since PC "ports" would be even more likely down the road.

There is rumor is that the PS4 would be running on linux. I feel it would be more a symbiotic? relationship at least between orbis(linux), durango(MS/Windows) and PC. Ports between each platform would be at least a little easier and would give more Linux ports onto Steam and maybe giving Valve style games onto the PS4.

If the PS4 was running on linux would it really matter? The xbox running on win2k didn't really make a lot of difference in terms of anything the consumer would care about. A console is a closed box, pretty much by design (unless something major shifts in how they do business) so it almost completely disqualifies an OS where they would have to open up even part of their source code.

Since PS+ is such a hit, and a great value, will it be a mandatory fe for online play for the PS4? I still think the lack of revenue Sony could guarantee from online play hampered their ability to commit to a strong network.

Ninety percent of my decision for next gen is to be where other sports gamers are. Xbox Live made it the best sports gaming experience since ICQ revolutionized how we gamed during Sierra's Front Page Sports era. The only sports game that sells Playstations is The Show, and baseball is the worst online sports game in the genre.

Jayhawker wrote:

Since PS+ is such a hit, and a great value, will it be a mandatory fe for online play for the PS4? I still think the lack of revenue Sony could guarantee from online play hampered their ability to commit to a strong network.

I wouldn't be surprised if Sony had planned on buttering us up using PS+ and then hooking network play to it with the PS4. I think the Vita's memory card pricing was at least partially a result of Sony seeing that MS got away with charging ridiculous amounts for 360 hard drives (that ended up biting them in the ass, but that's another thread). It's reasonable to think they'd learn the same lesson from MS regarding online fees.

Honestly, if that were their approach they would make it two separate charges. Charge for PSN and charge for PS+. There's a reason it's called + and I think if they were to make it mandatory for online play it would kill the entire branding.

SixteenBlue wrote:

Honestly, if that were their approach they would make it two separate charges. Charge for PSN and charge for PS+. There's a reason it's called + and I think if they were to make it mandatory for online play it would kill the entire branding.

Like cube said, this is Sony. They have to eff something up.

Certis wrote:

The PS3 and the 360 are neck and neck in global installed base, I don't know how much of an impact exclusives has on that anymore. To look at the Android/iPhone analogy again, I think there comes a point where the game libraries are so vast it becomes a secondary buying consideration to other features like interface, services and price.

Given that exclusives are what's keeping Nintendo completely afloat, they're important. Also, I think exclusives are going to matter more with the new generation. Keep in mind, the current generation has been almost twice as long as any other console generation, and that's what's balanced the sales numbers more than anything else.

A ton of people bought 360's initially, because that was the first out. They're using that to play CoD now(sales numbers bear this out, as the 360's CoD numbers are something like 3-4 times the PS3's). PS3 sales really started to gain momentum around 2010, which was 5 years after the 360 was released and 4 years after the PS3. At that point, the PS3 library had enough exclusives at bargain bin prices, 1080p TV's were starting to get really cheap, and the PS3's price had dropped to something sane, so people started buying PS3's with the money that would have probably gone to a new console and were playing cheap copies of Uncharted, Killzone, Little Big Planet, etc. Also, Sony had a ton of high profile first party releases around then, like Uncharted 2, Heavy Rain, and GT5.

So the question is: If MS released the 720 in 2010 or 2011, would we be having this conversation right now, or would Sony be basically out of the market completely? Remember, the PS3 was still around $350 in 2010, so MS could have come out with the 720 with modern(for then) hardware and sold it around $400 and still have been in the same price range.

Scratched wrote:

If the PS4 was running on linux would it really matter? The xbox running on win2k didn't really make a lot of difference in terms of anything the consumer would care about. A console is a closed box, pretty much by design (unless something major shifts in how they do business) so it almost completely disqualifies an OS where they would have to open up even part of their source code.

I was inferring about the acts of porting games even if customers don't even get to touch/mess with the OS. I don't think the OS is important, just the potentials of say maybe Valve games are decently ported and that there is a Linux version of Steam increases the value to Valve/Steam due to an easy way to port up new AAA games. Closed designed consoles still make the most money and if that can help PC gaming then everyone benefits.

They don't have to run Linux, they could run something with a better license, like BSD. Parts of NetBSD are already used in the Vita if you look at the copyright notices.
It would be so frickin' awesome if the PS4 and XBox Next had some kind of dual-boot. Encrypted sh*t for console games on one side; open and write to bare metal or linux or FreeBSD on the other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_On...
Of course I realize this is an entirely different division, but technically Sony does have many games on PC, some exclusively.

RolandofGilead wrote:

They don't have to run Linux, they could run something with a better license, like BSD. Parts of NetBSD are already used in the Vita if you look at the copyright notices.
It would be so frickin' awesome if the PS4 and XBox Next had some kind of dual-boot. Encrypted sh*t for console games on one side; open and write to bare metal or linux or FreeBSD on the other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_On...
Of course I realize this is an entirely different division, but technically Sony does have many games on PC, some exclusively.

. I'm a little ignorant but yes there are a lot of options for Sony to take. But I'm digressing. I hope they will try to be more customer focused I hope.

The MineCraft problem: the PS4 and next Xbox need flexibility, not power. Interesting read.

Also, if Minecraft is a launch title for PS4, then my kids will be begging me for it.

Massa wrote:

Ports are still going to be just as hard (or just as easy, depending on who you talk to). The switch from PPC to amd64 on consoles doesn't change the fundamental fact that PC games are written against common abstraction layers while console games are coded specifically for the machine.

The consoles will also have specific optimizations that PC developers can't take for granted. For example PS4 and Xbox games will take advantage of the unified memory architecture and use both CPU and GPU to solve a particular task. The 8 Jaguar cores and 18 CU are each better at different kind of data crunching, but because they have access to the same pool of memory they can easily collaborate on a task. On a PC you have very powerful components but their modular nature means they don't communicate that easily.

Games being coded for specific console architectures is the exact same situation we have today but they run so easily on PC's because the consoles are old and outdated. The jump in hardware requirements for next gen, plus the cost of abstracting those games to run on common Windows hardware, will not paint a pretty picture for the PC market at first.

You bring up phones on your post and that's a good example. Android and iOS devices run on the same architecture, sometimes even on the same chips, but what really matters when porting is the developer tools and SDK made available to developers. Those tools are still going to be very different between PC and consoles.

You're also not likely to see Sony games on a PC. I think it'd be a smart move for Sony actually to sell PC games (and perhaps even offer Cross Buy functionality between PC/PS3/PS4/Vita games) but it looks doubtful. They'd have to take that step before they start selling their own games on a PC. You'll play Uncharted Golden Abyss on an iPhone before you play Uncharted 4 on a PC.

Console games aren't coded specifically to the console as much as they used to be. Most games have a multiple layers of abstraction. Xbox uses DirectX just like PCs, and on top of that most games use some sort of engine (Unreal, CryEngine, MT Framework) that is designed to support multiple platforms and their various APIs (PS3 and OpenGl for example). A big part of porting is adjusting for the performance and memory differences in hardware. If hardware gets more similar, then porting should be easier. Of the issues you mention, it think it is much more the PC modular nature (lack of bandwidth between cpu/gpu/memory) that is the issue, and not the the abstraction layers.

It would be great for Sony to support the PC, but I'd settle for Microsoft supporting it... Where are Forza, Halo 3+, Gears 2, etc...?

Here is a really amazing demo that Crytek did showing the realtime multiplatform capability of CryEngine. He is editing on one screen, and the other three screens you see the output for PC, Xbox, and PS3.

Aristophan wrote:

The MineCraft problem: the PS4 and next Xbox need flexibility, not power. Interesting read.

Also, if Minecraft is a launch title for PS4, then my kids will be begging me for it.

That's a good article. Also, can I just say that I hate the trend of just putting links into your story to illustrate a point instead if just discussing the evidence you want to use. Why are you trying to get me to read something else?

TheCounselor wrote:
Aristophan wrote:

The MineCraft problem: the PS4 and next Xbox need flexibility, not power. Interesting read.

Also, if Minecraft is a launch title for PS4, then my kids will be begging me for it.

That's a good article. Also, can I just say that I hate the trend of just putting links into your story to illustrate a point instead if just discussing the evidence you want to use. Why are you trying to get me to read something else?

I think it is a respectful way of not loading down an article with explanations that most readers already get. It's kind of the new age of citation, too. I rarely follow those links unless I have an interest in more info than the article has.

Jayhawker wrote:
TheCounselor wrote:
Aristophan wrote:

The MineCraft problem: the PS4 and next Xbox need flexibility, not power. Interesting read.

Also, if Minecraft is a launch title for PS4, then my kids will be begging me for it.

That's a good article. Also, can I just say that I hate the trend of just putting links into your story to illustrate a point instead if just discussing the evidence you want to use. Why are you trying to get me to read something else?

I think it is a respectful way of not loading down an article with explanations that most readers already get. It's kind of the new age of citation, too. I rarely follow those links unless I have an interest in more info than the article has.

Nailed it. On top of that, it's very respectful of other journalists to actually link to their articles, rather than take their information or even use a proper citation. Ben Kuchera is very adamant about proper linking and giving traffic to the original sources.