right now they will keep on saying there wouldn't be a ps4 in the near future just to encourage you to buy their console of the current generation.
looking back at the history of the PlayStation brand, you can easily notice that it takes only 6 years to move on to the next-gen.
Well, just as a bit of a "history lesson" I suppose - the PS2 was released back in 99. Come 2004 the CELL was already being developed, and released in 2006 with the good ole PS3. That's 5 years between release -> development, and that would be for a whole new chip.
There are most likely plans already on the table for the next Sony platform (for the love of god, don't make another PSP). As another poster said, it really is all about the graphics - CPU's have sadly "topped out", sure, you can cram in more cores, but unless you do it right (Xbox 360) you end up with something ala a Sega Saturn, which was hard to code for (PS3 anyone?)
Of course, when the PS3 came out, having a modified Nvidia 7xxx series chipset was not half bad, but now - forget about it. Better that they at least put that in, vs trying to use the CELL!
Intel's Tera-scale 80 core CPU doing 1Teraflop/s @65W in 2007 said it would be market ready in five years,anyone hear any updates on that beast
something ive noticed is that people are complaining that the company has to make it better when if people are complaining some much shouldnt the people just do it and the ps4 will probably have much more power then the ps3 yet technology will be at a standstill for now since its much too rapid and graphics can only get to REAL-LIFE and when that happens we have reached the limit SO what im saying is if newer consoles ever come out then a lot of change would happen at that time and hopefully it will have full b/c then again it would be near 1000$ for the package and there will keep it at a normal laptop size harddrive if it was desktop then too much space in my opinion heh
Of course, they could just make a run of the mill setup , so all of the software guys are happy, but then hardware does not really advance - its a double edged sword, which is the same reason Dev houses complain about the PS3, saying its hard to code for.
It may be more difficult than say, a XB360/WII port - but when its done right, it gets done very, very well.
Since we only "upgrade" consoles about every 5 or so years, obviously we are going to constantly lag behind the latest and greatest hardware components.
However, it costs a fortune if someone were to try buying the latest and greatest hardware all the time at the rapid rate new technology comes out. Who can honestly say on a computer 5+ years later get EXCELLENT looking games without spending more than 600 dollars on the computer (even though the PS3 is below 300 now)? I'm looking at the games we have now and I see what the computer gaming market offers and my PS3 AAA titles almost always look better and run smoother than what a computer of the same price can do.
When you have a console, you know your going to get your money worth out of it, and you know its going to bring many years of new games.
The biggest problem with Sony gaming/portable consoles is they ALWAYS lack heavily in RAM. I mean it took them forever to lower the XMB footprint (RAM usage) enough to let it run at the same time your playing a game. If they are going to advertise the PlayStation 3 and future consoles as an Entertainment/Multimedia system with all these functions, they need to include enough RAM to allow them all to operate well without scavenging for RAM resources.
As far as the CPU goes, as long as they don't use something completely different (like what they did with the PS3) then it shouldn't be as hard to develop for. They should stick with the Cell, or go to something easier to use without sacrificing performance.
So there you have it. Make it easier to use and add more RAM.
I can understand why some components in the PS3 were so old. It was already too expensive for most people (undoubtably because of the blu Ray drive). Upgrading the GPU and the RAM would have made it sell even worse.
But, we have a solid new media format now that is good enough to last us into then ext generation. I don't think we will move away from Blu Ray for a long time. We might see more support for multiple layer Blu Ray discs that hold even more, but we will still use Blu Ray.
Now that Sony has won the media disc war and Blu Ray technology has become increasingly cheaper, it should be easier to focus on other technology other than the disc drive with the PS4 (such as more RAM, better CPU, better GPU etc..). The price of adding BluRay to the PS3 at the time was expensive because it was new, which added to the PS3's total cost. That means they had to make price cuts somewhere else...and it still ended up at 600 bucks!
When you think about it, the PS4 should turn out a lot better than what happened with the PS3. The PS3 basically got gimped because Sony needed to push out Blu Ray.
If these discs get any bigger, you guys better hope internet speeds get faster and cheaper. Digital downloads of fully packed Blu Ray games is going to be a joke at 50GB+.
No it does not make sense for CPUs to handle the job of the GPUs considering how far behind CPUs in power. You could have a 12 core Nehalem architecture CPU at 5GHz and it will still fail miserably to the job of a GPU. The Cell was used a lot for number crunching in 'Folding at Home' because there simply wasn't a GPU version of Folding at Home for a while. Any old video card is several times faster than the Cell. I use an old GTX 280 from 2008 and it puts the Cell to shame when it comes to number crunching for that.