PS4 in 2010? is this true?? (in Off-topic)

Untouchable August 23 2009 2:09 PM EDT

someone please tell me yes

Untouchable August 23 2009 2:12 PM EDT

nvm it's expected to come out 2012

when the world ends

Eurynome Bartleby [Bartleby's] August 23 2009 2:14 PM EDT

Please tell me no, they are just beginning to exploit the capacities of 3. And it's still very costy. It also came out two years ago only.

This is not real.

Zenai [Ministry of Pain] August 23 2009 2:17 PM EDT

Think about it Times for each platform has been roughly halved every release.....that would be about right I think.

Eurynome Bartleby [Bartleby's] August 23 2009 2:19 PM EDT

PS1: 94
Ps2: 2000
PS3: 2006

So, 2012 is likely, but not 2010.

TheHatchetman August 23 2009 5:37 PM EDT

What happened to the days of a Super Nintendo satisfying someone for 10+ years? :P

QBsutekh137 August 23 2009 5:55 PM EDT

I still play my PS2, have to, since the 3 isn't back-compat (and I'm fine with that, switches are super-cheap).

They are reducing price on the PS3, and making it slimmer. Google it. Still expensive, but since I am going to make the PS3 the central point of the entertainment center when I re-hook everything up here in Madison, it could be worth it. If they added a tuner (cheeeaaaap) and made the drive writable for some DVR capabilities, well, would you need anything else to hook to your TV? You'd have Blu-Ray, games, TV, and recording capability with decent digital audio and video outputs.

Then again, Sony doesn't want to put their receiver/stereo/DVD segment out of business. *smile*

Note, I am NOT a fanboi of Sony (or any kind), and if it weren't for the heat issues with XBox, it would have at least been a contender. I don't even own a single Blu-Ray disc. But I do think the PS3 is a tight (but expensive) piece of kit, and if it can help with convergence, I am all for it. Build a little Roku into there, too, and I'd really love it. All I would need then would be a computer and a PS3. That'll never happen, though, since Sony wants their own distribution channels.

Ah, I hate the smell of Capitalism in the evening...

Eurynome Bartleby [Bartleby's] August 23 2009 8:49 PM EDT

The PS3 is backwards compatible with many games, it just depends on which model you get :)
I play all my PS2 games on mine. But it's real costy, yeah. If I had known I was gonna use it to play old games, I'd have stuck with part two and played my hockey games on the PC instead. This generation of consoles is not very good.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] August 23 2009 8:56 PM EDT

BC is coming in the form of a software update...

Demigod August 23 2009 9:07 PM EDT


kevlar August 23 2009 9:16 PM EDT

I don't know anyone close that has a PS3... and I do agree, what happened to the days of Super Nes... I think between the Super Nes and the PS1... gaming went to another dimension.

kevlar August 23 2009 9:17 PM EDT

It's all about money though... unfortunately. And thinking more about the PS4... didn't the PS3 almost bankrupt or have a critical impact on Sony's bottom line? If the PS4 came out it seems it would be more for a stratgic economic move, not for entertainment purposes.

SimplyNic August 23 2009 9:29 PM EDT

:O Did you guys hear that they stopped making ps2 because it was still selling better than the ps3?

Soul Eater August 23 2009 9:36 PM EDT

You do realize this is a just a rumor and from a previous E3 Sony stated they planned on a 10 year cycle rather than 6 year cycle.

Soul Eater August 23 2009 9:53 PM EDT

Also this belongs in offtopic I believe.

Demigod August 23 2009 10:03 PM EDT

Simply Nic, no, I haven't heard that they stopped making the PS2 because it was selling too well. It also doesn't sound accurate.

Soul Eater, company reps have a job of making sure products move, and announcing the end of a product cycle won't boost sales; telling customers it's a long-term investment will. Both Sony and Microsoft have made claims to the 10-year cycle, but neither will come close. 2012 sounds realistic to me, and I've read of analysts (but not Michael Pachter) guessing that time frame as well. I have a feeling the next releases will begin with Nintendo, though.

Eurynome Bartleby [Bartleby's] August 23 2009 10:36 PM EDT

Backwards compatibility has been patched in 07.

The slim, though, is not getting it.

Demigod August 23 2009 11:10 PM EDT

Sorry I keep dropping links, but there's a chart on this page that shows the current state of backwards compatibility.

And FYI, I don't even own a PS3. My Wii and 360 are both modded and still collect dust from severe lack of use. CB and are my only gaming distractions. :)

Eurynome Bartleby [Bartleby's] August 23 2009 11:26 PM EDT


List of PS3 backwards incompatible PS2 and Playstation games

Please note this is not complete.

Demigod August 23 2009 11:47 PM EDT

That doesn't really affect my link...

Eurynome Bartleby [Bartleby's] August 24 2009 9:04 AM EDT

You guys seem to think the console has zero BC. I'm just trying to say it's not completely true, as I said in my second post.

"The PS3 is backwards compatible with many games, it just depends on which model you get :) "

This way I don't look like I'm making things up.

QBRanger August 24 2009 9:10 AM EDT

"didn't the PS3 almost bankrupt or have a critical impact on Sony's bottom line?" Incorrect, this is just another rumor.

The biggest coup for the PS3 and one of the main reasons Sony put it out when they did was the Blue-ray DVD player.

Remember at the time of launch it was a reenactment of Beta vs VHS war.

With people buying the PS3 for the games and the DVD player, it helped Sony win the HD-DVD vs Blue-ray war. Well that and the porn industry. But that is another discussion.

Which in the end, even though Sony probably loses a bit of money on each PS3 sold, especially when on sale, increases the companies overall bottom line.

Also, Sony makes money on the licensing fees for 3rd party games.

So while it seems they lose money on the PS3, it overall makes tons of money for them.

AdminShade August 24 2009 9:34 AM EDT

And they are beginning to sell a new slim-line PS3 which is a lot more cheap in production. I think they will either lose less money on it, or even make some on it even.

smallpau1 - Go Blues [Lower My Fees] August 24 2009 1:24 PM EDT

It's 120GB for Slim @ $299. Or you could get the 80GB Phat for $299 as well.

But even with the slim, and no BC, Sony is still selling for less than the production cost.

Demigod August 24 2009 1:53 PM EDT

MS is responding with a $230 Pro 60 GB Xbox 360. Even if it's just to empty the stock before their next SKU, it's a good deal.

smallpau1 - Go Blues [Lower My Fees] August 24 2009 1:57 PM EDT

VGChartz Hardware data for the period 12th Nov 2006 to 15th Aug 2009:

Console PS2
Total 26,444,647

VGChartz Hardware data for the period 12th Nov 2006 to 15th Aug 2009:

Console PS3
Total 23,151,766

ROFL! Those are both numbers from the time of release of PS3 till now. PS2 still sold more than PS3 since PS3's release.

This chart compares sales since the release of each console.

Cube August 25 2009 10:09 AM EDT

"The biggest coup for the PS3 and one of the main reasons Sony put it out when they did was the Blue-ray DVD player."

For some reason I never considered that, but that makes PS3 make so much more sense.
This thread is closed to new posts. However, you are welcome to reference it from a new thread; link this with the html <a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002rDT">PS4 in 2010? is this true??</a>