PlayStation 4 General DiscussionPS4

[Saidur_Ali]

That's a big "if". Sony is, as upposed to Microsoft, in a shaky situation, money-weise. Which is why I'd be fairly suprised if Microsoft doesn't abuse that advantage to its fullest. Now is THE opportunity to release a more powerful console at the same price as the PS4 by selling it at a loss to snatch even mire market share.

I sure hope MS pushes their hardware as far as possible. Gives us better hardware for the money and Sony a reason to actually push themselves a bit. Regarding Gran Turismo, I'd think that Forza is the best thing that could've happened to GT. PD has always been without actual competition and it was about time someone started to push them a little.

Depends all on Microsoft's approach, if it is same as they treat Halo franchise, then expect Sony to be more comfortable, if they treat it the same as their Forza approach, I expect Sony to be in a lot less comfortable position. One good thing Sony can rely on is cost of the kind of hardware they will both be using cannot become too expensive and will most likely cost a lot less than PS3 cost to produce, even if they go for realistic top end parts for a games console. If Sony decide to release a year later then I can see that as a positive this time, as they will make use of that year instead of releasing dated hardware like they did with PS3 regarding GPU.

 

[stiggygonzalez]

But why? Given the choice, why would anyone want to use Photoshop on a game console rather than their PC?

Ah,for people who don't have a PC or are considering replacing it with a PS4 that's just as good but cheaper.That's why it would be good if the PS4 is like a cheap gaming PC with all the features of a PC and console in one.This could replace the gaming PC and possibly even the PC itself providing it has the same compatibilty of a PC for both hardware and software i.e. photoshop,drawing tablets etc.
400$ sounds good to me.

 

[Samus]

The whole point of a console is it doesn't have the complexities of a PC and a PC operating system. A console is a home entertainment system that sits under your TV. I'm not going to sit on my couch and use something like Photoshop on my TV.

Besides if someone can't afford a PC they're unlikely to be able to afford Photoshop at $700.

 

[Tired Tyres]

Ah,for people who don't have a PC or are considering replacing it with a PS4 that's just as good but cheaper.That's why it would be good if the PS4 is like a cheap gaming PC with all the features of a PC and console in one.This could replace the gaming PC and possibly even the PC itself providing it has the same compatibilty of a PC for both hardware and software i.e. photoshop,drawing tablets etc.
400$ sounds good to me.

Consoles are propriety devices. Not PC's in any sense of the word even if they use the same types of Graphic cards and CPU's.

You have pay the manufacturer a licence fee to release anything on a console so forget anything like an Android style market.

 

[Earth]

You obviously would. You actually do now. That's why I want the hardware to be at least high-end now. Gives us at least some time where hardware power is no issue at all.

What would you consider high end? In order to run Battlefield on Ultra and at 60 frames per second you'd need a PC well over $1,000. I doubt Sony or Micriosoft can afford to sell that type of technology to the consumer for $400. $600, maybe, but most people arent willing to pay that much, unfortunately.

12 months after the PS3 launched Crysis was released on the PC. Its recommended specs were 2GBs of Ram and 640mbs of Video Ram. It also recommended nvidia 8000 series cards, but the PS3 was based on 7000 series cards. But keep in mind those are just recommended specs that probably wont run the game on "ultra". The PS3 was closer to it's minimum specs of 1GB ram and a Geforce 6600 GT, which the RSX was supposedly twice as strong.

The point is developers will always make games that require super high end equipment to look their best. The PS3 would have needed to be equipped with 2 GBs of Ram and 768mbs of video Ram to even have a chance of displaying Crysis anywhere near its highest settings. Would you agree both those numbers were unrealistic for the console at the time, unless Sony would be OK with making it's price $700, or $800 at launch?

I assume you still have a computer, no? Add the cost for that on the PS4 and see what's more expensive. Remember that a gaming PC replaces your console and a basic PC. If you did two jobs, you wouldn't want to be paid for only one, right?

I have a $200 laptop thats decent enough. If you dont game you dont need much more.

For starters, they would absolutely have to putperform Project CARS. Which isn't going to be easy. I've stopped playing console games exclusively some time ago, so to wow me, you've got to do more than look better than old console games.

PD has always wowed me with every new GT game on new hardware. I have no doubts they will do the same next gen. If next gen console games can look anything near the Agni's Philosophy demo we're in good shape. If Gran Turismo 6 can look as good as the photomode cars or their trailers we'll be fine.

And couple that fact with that I consider the rumoured hardware to be weaker relatively to a good gaming PC than the PS3's, and all of a sudden, five years would still mean that console hardware is going to suck for the last two years of the generation. It's just that instead of five years of decent graphical fidelity, we get three.

Weaker compared to a gaming PC priced over $1,000. With technology doubling every 18 months and with developers creating new games that need that extra power I dont see how console hardware being outdated 3-4 years down the line is such a horrible thing.

Its impossible to future proof yourself unless your willing to buy overpriced parts now.

Personally I've always been one thats always looked for the best value of now.

Buy a $300 card now and be set for 4-5 years

Buy a $150 card now and be set for 2-3 years.

Whats really puzzling is that the people who opt for the $300 card will likely end up replacing it with another $300 card just to try and keep up, and before the guy who bought the $150 card has to replace his in order to play the latest PC game.

So you can try and chase technology, which is like a dog chasing its tail, impossible and wasteful, or you can go with what is the best value for right now. The consoles have chosen the best value for right now.

 

[stiggygonzalez]

Consoles are propriety devices. Not PC's in any sense of the word even if they use the same types of Graphic cards and CPU's.

You have pay the manufacturer a licence fee to release anything on a console so forget anything like an Android style market.

Well the PS3 already has apps like catch up TV Lovefilm,so why not expand?

 

[stiggygonzalez]

The whole point of a console is it doesn't have the complexities of a PC and a PC operating system. A console is a home entertainment system that sits under your TV. I'm not going to sit on my couch and use something like Photoshop on my TV.

Besides if someone can't afford a PC they're unlikely to be able to afford Photoshop at $700.

It's not just photoshop,any other application minigame etc.
I'd rather have all my software and gaming in one system on my 32 inch TV at a good price than buying a console and a PC with a monitor half the size and spending money on two systems.

 

[Samus]

Well the PS3 already has apps like catch up TV Lovefilm,so why not expand?

Because they are free apps (not including subscriptions) for multimedia experiences, Photoshop would be $600 and is not a multimedia/entertainment program. Who is going to buy that for their PS4, or any similar PC program?

It's not just photoshop,any other application minigame etc.
I'd rather have all my software and gaming in one system on my 32 inch TV at a good price than buying a console and a PC with a monitor half the size and spending money on two systems.

What software? I do photo, audio and video editing on my PC with various different programs, I do them on my PC because it makes sense to with mouse and keyboard and me sat at a desk. I wouldn't do some video editing sat on my couch with a gamepad or even with a keyboard and mouse.

A console is an entertainment hub, it's not a workstation.

 

[stiggygonzalez]

Because they are free apps (not including subscriptions) for multimedia experiences, Photoshop would be $600 and is not a multimedia/entertainment program. Who is going to buy that for their PS4, or any similar PC program?



What software? I do photo, audio and video editing on my PC with various different programs, I do them on my PC because it makes sense to with mouse and keyboard and me sat at a desk. I wouldn't do some video editing sat on my couch with a gamepad or even with a keyboard and mouse.

A console is an entertainment hub, it's not a workstation.

Well that's where are opinions differ,I don't see why people wouldn't buy programmes for their PS4 and with it rumoured to be a modified PC why not have software on it used for PC's perhaps people will consider doing work and play on the same system rather than getting a console and PC.

 

[Luminis]

Depends all on Microsoft's approach, if it is same as they treat Halo franchise, then expect Sony to be more comfortable, if they treat it the same as their Forza approach, I expect Sony to be in a lot less comfortable position. One good thing Sony can rely on is cost of the kind of hardware they will both be using cannot become too expensive and will most likely cost a lot less than PS3 cost to produce, even if they go for realistic top end parts for a games console. If Sony decide to release a year later then I can see that as a positive this time, as they will make use of that year instead of releasing dated hardware like they did with PS3 regarding GPU.

Well, one of the reasons why the PS3 was so expensive in the first place was the newly developed BD drive and the CELL. Going with off the shelv parrts should solve that, after all. But, yeah, it all depends on the strategy both MS and Sony chose to follow.

I've got to admit, though, the PS3 and the 360 were already largely interchangeable, from my point of view. If the next gen gets even closer to each other with even more multiplatform titles and even less third party exclusives, I'd really doubt I'd care about which console sits next to my TV. A fistful of exclusive titles (which cancel each other out, somewhat, anyways) and some different gimmicks I don't care about aren't going to make me chose one of the other. So, yeah, I'm really interested to find out how they'll try to differentiate themselves from each other, aside from FM vs. GT and Halo vs. Killzone...

Ah,for people who don't have a PC or are considering replacing it with a PS4 that's just as good but cheaper.

Who would ever cross-shop a PC for apllications like Photo Shop (or other stuff, like Excel and Access) with a gaming console?

What would you consider high end? In order to run Battlefield on Ultra and at 60 frames per second you'd need a PC well over $1,000. I doubt Sony or Micriosoft can afford to sell that type of technology to the consumer for $400. $600, maybe, but most people arent willing to pay that much, unfortunately.

All I can do is refer to the launch of the 360. It was pretty much equal to a higher-end gaming PC in its day. And it was sold at a loss. Still expensive, yup, but that's actually what I'd love to see again. It worked than and with Sony not selling their hardware at a loss, it might prove to be an even better strategy now, for reasons already stated.

12 months after the PS3 launched Crysis was released on the PC. Its recommended specs were 2GBs of Ram and 640mbs of Video Ram. It also recommended nvidia 8000 series cards, but the PS3 was based on 7000 series cards. But keep in mind those are just recommended specs that probably wont run the game on "ultra". The PS3 was closer to it's minimum specs of 1GB ram and a Geforce 6600 GT, which the RSX was supposedly twice as strong.

12 months after vs. 24 months before. See the difference?

The point is developers will always make games that require super high end equipment to look their best. The PS3 would have needed to be equipped with 2 GBs of Ram and 768mbs of video Ram to even have a chance of displaying Crysis anywhere near its highest settings. Would you agree both those numbers were unrealistic for the console at the time, unless Sony would be OK with making it's price $700, or $800 at launch?

See, as I alluded to above, I wouldn't mind the console not being to able to keep up with PCs a year after its release. What I dislike is the thought that they'd barely be capable of keeping up with PC games that are, at that point, two years old already. It's one thing to deal with rapidly aging tech, but an entirely different issue if you're lagging behind even prior to release.

I have a $200 laptop thats decent enough. If you dont game you dont need much more.

Now that's a huge difference there You'd probably even that out by taking advantage of the first steam sale - or the fact that PC games are generally about twenty bucks cheaper than console games.

PD has always wowed me with every new GT game on new hardware. I have no doubts they will do the same next gen. If next gen console games can look anything near the Agni's Philosophy demo we're in good shape. If Gran Turismo 6 can look as good as the photomode cars or their trailers we'll be fine.

I, for one, won't be wowed if all they're achieving is catching up to Project CARS or the like. I don't care that it's PD. If someone else did it before them, they're not going to wow me with photomode-like cars, whether it's a first for them or not.

Weaker compared to a gaming PC priced over $1,000. With technology doubling every 18 months and with developers creating new games that need that extra power I dont see how console hardware being outdated 3-4 years down the line is such a horrible thing.

You've got to wonder why it's that hard for them to even max out a 2011 game, then. Technology should have almost doubled since then, right?

Its impossible to future proof yourself unless your willing to buy overpriced parts now.

You can't future proof yourself entirely, of course. I'll agree to that. You can easily build something that'll do fine for three to four years, very fine, actually, before it falls off. That's what I want and that's what the last generation was like. And that's what I think won't happen this time.

So you can try and chase technology, which is like a dog chasing its tail, impossible and wasteful, or you can go with what is the best value for right now. The consoles have chosen the best value for right now.

You could also opt for option three: See what solution gives you the best balance between cost and quality over the course of the next five, six, seven years that you're stuck with your hardware. After all, you still want your games to look somewhat good and not totally pale in comparison to what's available on other systems in a few years. You still want it to sell, right?

On the other hand, with consoles getting more and more targeted at the casual market, I've got to admit, you've got a point. And a good and big one, at that. The huge market that was opened up by the Wii doesn't care about graphics. It doesn't care about quality. It cares about the next Wii Sports and Kinect Adventure. Consoles are seemingly more and more focused on that market, which makes impressive hardware and the 'bang for your buck' factor, which Sony and MS created by selling the hardware at a loss, meaningless. It makes the reasons I was wowed by consoles meaningless and obsolete.

You might be much more realistic in your views than I am, because I still hope that that's just a bad premonition I've got, not what's actually happening. I guess I just don't fit the demographic for consoles anymore. At least not as well as I did ten years ago. Which is fine, it's just hard for me to see stuff like that change and let it go just like that.

Well that's where are opinions differ,I don't see why people wouldn't buy programmes for their PS4 and with it rumoured to be a modified PC why not have software on it used for PC's perhaps people will consider doing work and play on the same system rather than getting a console and PC.

For one thing because people using a PS4 for Photoshop would be an extreme minority. Or most other non-entertainment programs. You think Microsoft would bother porting their Office suite for the 720 when 98,7% of MS Office users would be on a PC, anyways? Sure, entertainment related stuff liek Facebook and some web browsing, why not. That's small and easy stuff that's done even for smartphones. But Photoshop is a different animal entirely.

 

[Samus]

Well that's where are opinions differ,I don't see why people wouldn't buy programmes for their PS4 and with it rumoured to be a modified PC why not have software on it used for PC's perhaps people will consider doing work and play on the same system rather than getting a console and PC.

I highly, highly doubt that.

 

[TheDabbinDave]

Why not?
Just an example of software that could be made compatible along with drawing tablets similar to Udraw.

That would double or triple the price of the console for Adobe to infuse PhotoShop into GT!

 

[Earth]

Luminis I read your replys and theres not much I can say in return without bringing my same old tired thoughts.

Like you, I wish we got stronger hardware. Personally I'd pay up to $600 again for a beastly console. But as you say the market has become more casual and that type of price tag is out of the question for most.

Im fine with a 'weaker' console as long as this generation doesnt last as long as the last. When console graphics hit the wall, the wall being the point where any further progress in visuals isn't easily noticeable, the next console should be right around the corner.

The PS3 hit the 'wall' visually a long time ago. Many franchises have come and they've had their sequels, but in order for them to take that next step they need new hardware to enhance the gameplay experience through increased/sharper visuals, better physics, sound, AI, etc. This long console generation has stunted the growth of gaming and I hope it doesnt happen again.



Oh, and Flight Simulator X is over 6 years old and the PS4 wont be able to max it out

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Maybe Sony should add freeware like GIMP instead Photoshop, Firefox, accessible during gameplay on games that support it, making livery, emblem, graphic manipulation via tablet or mouse/keyboard connected wirelessly, the possibility are endless ... with the big RAM it will have, I don't see an issue there.

 

[Samus]

Because a console is also meant to be simple and have easy to use tools and programs, when you start throwing in fully formed PC programs you throw in a huge learning curve that people aren't willing to use.

Yes technically you could put GIMP on a console and let people use that for liveries but that isn't what most console users want, they want something simpler and more user friendly like what is found in Forza.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Luminis I read your replys and theres not much I can say in return without bringing my same old tired thoughts.

Like you, I wish we got stronger hardware. Personally I'd pay up to $600 again for a beastly console. But as you say the market has become more casual and that type of price tag is out of the question for most.

Im fine with a 'weaker' console as long as this generation doesnt last as long as the last. When console graphics hit the wall, the wall being the point where any further progress in visuals isn't easily noticeable, the next console should be right around the corner.

The PS3 hit the 'wall' visually a long time ago. Many franchises have come and they've had their sequels, but in order for them to take that next step they need new hardware to enhance the gameplay experience through increased/sharper visuals, better physics, sound, AI, etc. This long console generation has stunted the growth of gaming and I hope it doesnt happen again.



Oh, and Flight Simulator X is over 6 years old and the PS4 wont be able to max it out

This is depressing as all get out to read. I sincerely hope companies don't let graphical prowess dictate how often they have to flip consoles. There's a time and place for realism, and that will always be a challenge to fit within a console's specs, but plenty of games have proven successful, and tons of fun to play, without having an alphabet soup of graphics-related features, or the same turd-brown palette and "gritty realism" the usual first-person-shooter suspects employ. A lot of the best games for both 360 and PS3 have shown up in the second-half of their lifecycles. While this generation's time length has been a bit longer than the two previous, I know I for one would probably just stop buying them if they started pushing them out every 2 or 3 years. A lot of people buy consoles for gaming exactly to avoid that annoying constant-upgrade approach to PC gaming.

 

[stiggygonzalez]

Maybe Sony should add freeware like GIMP instead Photoshop, Firefox, accessible during gameplay on games that support it, making livery, emblem, graphic manipulation via tablet or mouse/keyboard connected wirelessly, the possibility are endless ... with the big RAM it will have, I don't see an issue there.

Excellent idea!
Yep with photoshop being very expensive GIMP would be good to use for livery editing on GT.

Because a console is also meant to be simple and have easy to use tools and programs, when you start throwing in fully formed PC programs you throw in a huge learning curve that people aren't willing to use.

Yes technically you could put GIMP on a console and let people use that for liveries but that isn't what most console users want, they want something simpler and more user friendly like what is found in Forza.

You mustn't know alot of people.
I'm willing to learn how to use complicated software and besides there's nothing wrong with giving people choice that's what PC's are all about so why not give similar choice to console users,killing to birds with one stone so to speak.

I highly, highly doubt that.

If the price is right why not?
Under cutting PC's may boost sales of games and external hardware.

 

[Musolini187]

for me next gen seems way to weak. besides that, even this gen with the improved graphics, the gameplay is still lacking.

honestly current gen is still good enough to last another 3 to 4 years. at that time we might actually get a next gen console worth purchasing power wise.

does anybody here know how much more powerful the ps3 was in comparison to the ps2?

 

[Tired Tyres]

You mustn't know alot of people.
I'm willing to learn how to use complicated software and besides there's nothing wrong with giving people choice that's what PC's are all about so why not give similar choice to console users,killing to birds with one stone so to speak.

What part of proprietary OS Games Console don't you get?

Having a PC CPU and GPU does not in any way whatsoever turn a Games Console into a PC.

Edit. The reason why Games Consoles can outperform "same spec" PC's for games is because they are totally dedicated to that task. PC's have to do all sorts of other things at the same time.

If you want a system that does all that, buy a PC. It's designed to do all that.

 

[Luminis]

does anybody here know how much more powerful the ps3 was in comparison to the ps2?

That's hard to say because you would usually go and measure the performance output in FLOPS. That's tricky, however. The CELL's SPUs don't support double precision which most FLOPS measurements seem to be based on. The CELL has been measured at 200+ GFLOPS with single precision, but for most applications, double precision is used. according to Wikipedia, it's performance drastically falls off under these circumstances.

Now, for comparisons sake, let's take a look at the Xbox360. Because it's easier to measure the performance here and the PS3 and 360 have been very close, anyways.

A quick google search indicates that the Xbox 360 is rated at roughly 315 GFLOPS (CPU and GPU combined, of course), whereas as the PS2 and original Xbox were rated at a combined 6 and 7.2 GFLOPS respectively. That makes the Xbox 360 more than fourty times as powerful, as far as floating point opeprations go, as the orignal Xbox was.

In the case of the PS2 and PS3, the factor should be even bigger.

Now, FLOPS are not the be-all end-all way to measure performance. If it was running well enough on all of the hardware, a proper benchmarking program would be needed - but that's impossible due to the different hardware architecure and lack of a common OS shared ammongst all consoles. So, going by what one can find easily, the seventh generation was approximately 40 times as powerful as the sixth. Which then explains why the upcoming consoles being 12 times (or so) as powerful as the current ones is actually pretty underwhelming. If that difference has been measured by a similar metric, of course. If that's the case, the difference between the seventh and the eight generation will be much smaller than what has been witnessed with the last generation.

/edit: I even got my numbers wrong. The xbox was rated at 7,2 GFLOPS, the 360 at 355 GFLOPS, which makes it almost fifty times as powerful.

/moar edit: More googling revealed rumours that the PS4 is going to come in at 1.83 TFLOPS. That's 5.15 times as much as the 360. Compared to the 360 performing 49.31 times as many floating point operations as the original Xbox did.

 

[Tesla]

So what specs would be required for the PS4 to be 40 times as powerful as the 360/PS3?

 

[Luminis]

So what specs would be required for the PS4 to be 40 times as powerful as the 360/PS3?

I honestly have no idea. Because, frankly, one would have to find FLOPS numbes for specific pieces of hardware to mix and match something that'd get to the desired amount of FLOPS. And even then, I kinda don't know how they'd be performing in a console environment. All I can provide are the numbers readily available on the web.

So it's hard to tell, really. But a Radoen 7950 supposeldy manages 2.8 TFLOPS by itself, which would already be about a TFLOP ahead of the rumoured combined FLOPS of a PS4. A 7970 sits at 3.8 TFLOPS, again, by itself.

I frankly doubt that you'd be getting to fourty times as much FLOPS as you got with 360 in any concievable way. But a single high-end card outperforming the complete system already is a bit... Depressing. The most interesting part, though, is that a regular 7850 should be outputting 1.76 GFLOPS as well. Which would indicate either of too things: One, the rumoured GFLOPS for the PS4 being wrong. Or a downgraded version of the 7850 chip being used.

The former would be nice, but I could honestly see both of these being the case.

 

[stiggygonzalez]

What part of proprietary OS Games Console don't you get?

Having a PC CPU and GPU does not in any way whatsoever turn a Games Console into a PC.

Edit. The reason why Games Consoles can outperform "same spec" PC's for games is because they are totally dedicated to that task. PC's have to do all sorts of other things at the same time.

If you want a system that does all that, buy a PC. It's designed to do all that.

Well look what's been done with the PS3.It has an internet browser,apps and we can download software from PSN,videos,games etc.I'm merely suggesting that with the rumoured power of the PS4,apps,software etc could be expanded on giving a system that's a bit of an all-rounder but biased towards gaming,a 'gaming PC console' if you like.
A PC equivalent is far to expensive,gaming PC's from ASUS are over 1000pounds that's why a 250pounds games console with PC features appeals to me.If the price and features are right a console could quite easily replace a PC for me,does anyone agree?

 

[Luminis]

Well look what's been done with the PS3.It has an internet browser,apps and we can download software from PSN,videos,games etc.I'm merely suggesting that with the rumoured power of the PS4 apps,software etc could be expanded on giving a system that's a bit of an all-rounder but biased towards gaming,a 'gaming PC console' if you like.

Why wouldn't you just buy a PC, then?

Because, with such apllications come a lot of other necessities. More RAM, a better interface, standard support for peripheral equipment and stuff like that. But, most importantly, if you want to get some big names on board, you'd need either to have a huge installation base (which seems unlikely, as a console wouldn't do anything for the professional market) or create an environment that makes it easy to port various applications to the console. Which would mean a more sophisticated OS.

At that point, you'd end up with a $400 ultra budget PC that lost its advantages of being a console. The reason why consoles offer good visual fidelity for the money and being basically plug-and-play is that there's no need for an operating system (well, and the hardware being locked). Change that, and you'd end up with something that just threw the whole idea of being a console in the first place out of the window.

Also, keep in mind the difference of small, easily developed entertainment apps, like a Facebook app, and a proper range of prefessionally used programs like Photoshop or MS Office. Everybody and their mother has Facebook and ti fits right in with the focus on entertainment. 90 % of console owners I know don't even know how to use Office or Photoshop/Gimp on their PC, let alone wanting to use it on their console.

It's a niche market, really. Just like Linux on the PS3 is. It's a neat little gimmick, but how many people do you know that use a Linux PS3 as a replacement for a desktop PC? I, for one, know a big total of zero.

 

[stiggygonzalez]

Why wouldn't you just buy a PC, then?

Because, with such apllications come a lot of other necessities. More RAM, a better interface, standard support for peripheral equipment and stuff like that. But, most importantly, if you want to get some big names on board, you'd need either to have a huge installation base (which seems unlikely, as a console wouldn't do anything for the professional market) or create an environment that makes it easy to port various applications to the console. Which would mean a more sophisticated OS.

At that point, you'd end up with a $400 ultra budget PC that lost its advantages of being a console. The reason why consoles offer good visual fidelity for the money and being basically plug-and-play is that there's no need for an operating system (well, and the hardware being locked). Change that, and you'd end up with something that just threw the whole idea of being a console in the first place out of the window.

Also, keep in mind the difference of small, easily developed entertainment apps, like a Facebook app, and a proper range of prefessionally used programs like Photoshop or MS Office. Everybody and their mother has Facebook and ti fits right in with the focus on entertainment. 90 % of console owners I know don't even know how to use Office or Photoshop/Gimp on their PC, let alone wanting to use it on their console.

It's a niche market, really. Just like Linux on the PS3 is. It's a neat little gimmick, but how many people do you know that use a Linux PS3 as a replacement for a desktop PC? I, for one, know a big total of zero.

My idea is to save money.
Yes it seems people prefer the idea of a PC and console to be separate.
Also it seems as though it's to complicated to make a PC console in one and takes away the simplicity a console was meant for.Yep maybe the market is to small and people are not willing to buy a system that requires a lot of time and effort to work.
I'm not against the PC,there great systems but I can't help but think Sony and MS could make better use of their hardware,but if there's no market for that then there is no point.

 

[dice1998]

My idea is to save money.
Yes it seems people prefer the idea of a PC and console to be separate.
Also it seems as though it's to complicated to make a PC console in one and takes away the simplicity a console was meant for.Yep maybe the market is to small and people are not willing to buy a system that requires a lot of time and effort to work.
I'm not against the PC,there great systems but I can't help but think Sony and MS could make better use of their hardware,but if there's no market for that then there is no point.

You mean something like OtherOS? That was fun while it lasted..

 

[Luminis]

My idea is to save money.
Yes it seems people prefer the idea of a PC and console to be separate.
Also it seems as though it's to complicated to make a PC console in one and takes away the simplicity a console was meant for.Yep maybe the market is to small and people are not willing to buy a system that requires a lot of time and effort to work.
I'm not against the PC,there great systems but I can't help but think Sony and MS could make better use of their hardware,but if there's no market for that then there is no point.

That's precisely it. Someone's in the market for something he can both game and work on, there's already something available: Computers. In all flavours, too. Wouldn't make much sense for Sony and MS to try and compete there.

 

[Sprite]

I think that graphics and hardware are a poor reason for life cycles of new consoles. dont get me wrong im always salavating at launch to see what my new shiny box can do and I always love to see Dev's push boundries of effects and lighting ect in games.

But you have to agree that allot of people buy old consoles or at least save them to play old games, not because they have supierior graphics but because they are awesome to play. If I bought games just for graphics I wouldnt have may games for consoles I definatly wouldnt play hand held games and I would be mostly be gaming on PC.

Personally I want them to keep the sixaxis and just tweak and improve it slightly and I would love to have a console that lasts me another 10 years. If they decide to base the console on PC arcitecture then I dont really care if after 2 months its out of date compared to PC's themselves as long as Dev's keep pushing it as much as they can and spend more time improving gameplay and game size ect rather then worrying about how they are going to get AA working alongside HDR ect and what that will do to AI overheads.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

It's not just for better graphics or to say 'we have stronger hardware;' honestly, how many devs have to say they either cut and/or limit features because of current gen hardware limitations? I don't get it... Do you voluntarily live under rocks?

 

[avens]

Buying a gaming console is not a way to save money.