Possiblilty for a PS4

^ cant wait, Beam Me Up Scotty!

jin_kazamaF.E.P.C. (f*ck*ng expensive playing console)... :D

ultraby the time processing and graphics become obsolete, we'll probably be living like in star trek, space voyaging. holograhpic imaging and such, like the holodeck in star trek.

What. An. Awesome. Thread.The PS3 is already turning out to be a disaster for $ony, so I very much doubt we'll be seeing a PS4.

ultraby the time processing and graphics become obsolete, we'll probably be living like in star trek, space voyaging. holographic imaging and such, like the Holder in star trek.

:)even though I dont put my trust in science but believe it or not the person that invented the modern cell phone originally was inspired/got the idea for the modern cell phone by the communicator that was used in the first star trek show, not only that but scientist have successfully teleported subatomic particles from one area to another area so it will be just a matter of time before humans could be teleported from one area to another like the star trek shows, and also holographic technology that is protrayed on a Holodeck in star trek shows is slowly becoming a reality if you dont believe me google: Star Trek's Holodeck Closer To Reality . :)

I figure the only way you could upgrade a game console from here on out is "how" you play and not "what" you play. Nintendo is getting a headstart in this direction, bringing in new ways to play their games while the other consoles are focusing on standard playing methods with higher specs. If we do get some sort of "virtual reality" simulators, I don't want to think about how much that would cost. =\

My uni has a VR setup, it cost £250,000 GBP ($500,000 USD)

Come on people. All of you that are saying that we can't upgrade the graphics or CPU/memory power of the PS3 ask yourself these two questions:1. Are the graphics of the games you are playing real-life? No, not "close enough" - real life.2. Are there load-times at all?As to whether Sony will still be around to be able to produce it? I don't know, I haven't looked into Sony's financial position, and don't pretend to be a market analyst. But from what I do know, you have to remember this: they may not have had the most success with the PS3 but they are enormously successful at the moment with their other products such as the Bravia range of flat-panel TVs - so much so that I have heard they are funding their games research from this success.

Replying to #46

The only way to eradicate load times entirely is to return to the use of solid-state media, which was abandoned because of the cost and the relatively low capacities of it.There is a limit on the speed optical drives can achieve due to the rotation of the disk and the accuracy of the laser. Hard disk speeds are also constrained by similar factors, although hard disks are capable of much higher data rates than optical drives.

If there would be a PS4 it would be 20 years down the line where holoprojection can happen in the household for realist gaming and a 120 terabyte harddrive at $2500 price tag . Other than that I see Playstation becoming the next Sega Dreamcast.

SupaslyI'd rather die than see a PS4...

i agree

adrelith · #461. Are the graphics of the games you are playing real-life? No, not "close enough" - real life.

I don't care who you are or what you play: you do NOT need real-life graphics. Not only are they COMPLETELY overkill, but it would just be more fuel for the "Video Games Promote Violence!!!!" crowd (if you think a game like GTA caused a stir with PS2 graphics, them how much do you think such a game with "real-life" graphics would cause??).

^ yeah thats true, some people already have the problem of not being able to tell the difference between games and real life and lose the plot. But seriously the PS3 hasnt been out that long, why are you all asking for a PS4?

Loonylion · #47The only way to eradicate load times entirely is to return to the use of solid-state media, which was abandoned because of the cost and the relatively low capacities of it.There is a limit on the speed optical drives can achieve due to the rotation of the disk and the accuracy of the laser. Hard disk speeds are also constrained by similar factors, although hard disks are capable of much higher data rates than optical drives.

Yeah, I know - I meant noticeable load times. Even from solid state information still needs to be moved into RAM to be executed so with current technology we wont completely remove load times - the point was they could be much faster.

I overlooked your post the first time I read this thread -

cfiniris · #50I don't care who you are or what you play: you do NOT need real-life graphics. Not only are they COMPLETELY overkill, but it would just be more fuel for the "Video Games Promote Violence!!!!" crowd (if you think a game like GTA caused a stir with PS2 graphics, them how much do you think such a game with "real-life" graphics would cause??).

Did you read the rest of my post at all? Did I say that I wanted better graphics? No. What I DID say was that people who say you can't improve on graphics are wrong. Companies like Sony don't care about consequences - they care about money. They won't be the ones sued if their games "incite violence".

Replying to #54

NO, what you said was:

adrelith · #46Come on people. All of you that are saying that we can't upgrade the graphics or CPU/memory power of the PS3 ask yourself these two questions:1. Are the graphics of the games you are playing real-life? No, not "close enough" - real life.

The very fact that you pointed that out says that's what you want.It's not only a matter of if you can improve graphics, but also if you should improve them. Yes, OF COURSE Sony would get in trouble if their video games caused violence, just like if McDonald's hamburgers were discovered to make people sick. The people getting sick aren't the ones getting in trouble, now are they? Granted, the people causing the violence would also get in trouble, but Sony WOULD NOT be free from consequences. For one thing, the press would hop on the story and place Sony in the spotlight, which would flare up the anti-videogame crowd like I mentioned and "Off the snowball goes!!!".

cfiniris · #55NO, what you said was:The very fact that you pointed that out says that's what you want.It's not only a matter of if you can improve graphics, but also if you should improve them. Yes, OF COURSE Sony would get in trouble if their video games caused violence, just like if McDonald's hamburgers were discovered to make people sick. The people getting sick aren't the ones getting in trouble, now are they? Granted, the people causing the violence would also get in trouble, but Sony WOULD NOT be free from consequences. For one thing, the press would hop on the story and place Sony in the spotlight, which would flare up the anti-videogame crowd like I mentioned and "Off the snowball goes!!!".

Learn to read. Highlight the exact part where I said that's what I want. Please. From what I'm reading it sounds to me it sounds like I said that you are able to increase graphics - NOT that I want that. If I say they sky is blue, does that mean I want it to be blue?If you know anything about the gaming or computing industry, hell any major competitive industry, any major company will always want to release the biggest and the best - in some way or another. Sony's goal is to make money - if they decide to continue how they have and create a gaming system with better graphics and more power, people will buy it. And what I was saying is: "They are able to improve"As to legal action: yes, it would be bad for Sony's image - but it has no legal connection at all. The publisher is the one who made the content, and the people who license it. Suing Sony is like suing the maker of your DVD player because you let your children watch porn and now they're screwed up.First off: you shouldn't have let your children watch porn (or let them play violent games)
Secondly: how could the DVD manufacturer have stopped you?Sony can't be held accountable for the stupidity of others.

Replying to #57

lol i wouldnt be so sure these days :p

Honestly, if Sony were to make a PS4, they would kill of their gaming industry due to the great loss of money building the PS3.They had already lost in market value to Nintendo, which is really amazing, because all Nintendo sells is gaming consoles and handhelds, while Sony sells their entire playstation series and electronics as well, like mp3 players, phones, TVs, DVD players.etc.
Sony is reaching its downfall in the gaming industry.Sony surely cannot even think about a PS4 at this rate with all the money they have already lost. The only thing keeping them from going under is the other industries like mp3's, laptops, TVs, DVD players, blu-ray and their large fanbase.They claim that their graphics are truly superior, but look at what they did to F.E.A.R.!This is the X360 screenshot, a little low-res I know:
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2006/304/reviews/932585_20061101_screen003.jpgNow this the image on the PS3 from the same scene:
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2007/115/reviews/935058_20070426_screen001.jpgYou can clearly see that the PS3 has poorer fire effects and poorer lighting for this game.Oh, and I don't use a Sony DVD player, I use LG, and a Samsung HD TV.

ALL console manufacturers lose money on consoles, they expect to, they make it up from games royalties.As for what 'Sony' did to F.E.A.R, they didn't. Sony do not make games, third party companies do, therefore it is their responsibility to come up with decent games, not Sony's.