I believe what Sony was saying was that games like Uncharted will not force you to use the touch screen or back touchpad, but that doesn't really apply to games like Little Deviants, where some of the minigames are built around it. I'm sure we'll be seeing games that make exclusive use of the front or back touch pads before too long. The problem with putting the back pad on the rear of the device is that it would not be aligned with the screen when the controls slide out. In the examples of its use that we have seen so far, Little Deviants and Little Big Planet, the touchpad being aligned with the screen is important.Stephen Colbert said:
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
My speculation: Playstation Vita = PowerVR 6, Playstation 4 = Project Denver, more
- Thread starter Stephen Colbert
- Start date
zomgbbqftw
Banned
chris0701 said:
At least that thread is grounded in some reality and there is real evidence that Sony are working on a WebKit port for some of their devices.
This is pure speculation and conjecture.
Baller. PhD
Banned
Thanks for the heads up, Pachter.
indigo-cyclops
Member
Why won't OP address the facts about Vita shipping this year and the specs have been locked down for the most part, just not public knowledge. Is it because he is so wrong he just can't accept it?
Mr.Squirrel
Tom
LmaoBaller said:
Kuro Madoushi
Unconfirmed Member
I always wonder about Sony's strategy.
The launch price was a joke and definitely hubris there. That said, built-in hdd, wifi, rechargeable controllers, blu-ray, and hdmi were freakin awesome to have. I get an xbox later and there's a crappy 20gb hdd, controller with AA bats, no wifi, dvd only, and no hdmi.
That lead was significant, but I do agree if the PS3 had more a dev-friendly design and was cheaper, it would've killed the 360 instead of being in a race now.
Will Sony learn? No. They have a history of developing their own proprietary bs. It used to work, but the more time devs spend on figuring out how your device works, the less time they are developing games. I also apply this to game engines. Wow did SE waste a lot of time this gen...maybe had they used unreal or cry engine, they could've gotten something out sooner with 'hd towns!'
The launch price was a joke and definitely hubris there. That said, built-in hdd, wifi, rechargeable controllers, blu-ray, and hdmi were freakin awesome to have. I get an xbox later and there's a crappy 20gb hdd, controller with AA bats, no wifi, dvd only, and no hdmi.
That lead was significant, but I do agree if the PS3 had more a dev-friendly design and was cheaper, it would've killed the 360 instead of being in a race now.
Will Sony learn? No. They have a history of developing their own proprietary bs. It used to work, but the more time devs spend on figuring out how your device works, the less time they are developing games. I also apply this to game engines. Wow did SE waste a lot of time this gen...maybe had they used unreal or cry engine, they could've gotten something out sooner with 'hd towns!'
zomgbbqftw
Banned
FTH said:
It isn't, in fact it is below everyone's intelligence level...
OP needs to lose his threadmaking rights.
AceBandage
Banned
Didn't you already make this topic...
AceBandage
Banned
Tobor said:
Figured as much.
charlequin said:
DECK'ARD said:
Pureauthor said:
Heh.
Stephen Colbert
Banned
I love how people are so adamant that it can't or won't happen, but can't offer up many good reasons why not, or do much of anything really other than troll.
The main reason people offer up why this isn't doable is that there is apparently no way a PS4 releasing in 2014 can use a cutting edge gpu set to release in 2013. However, the Xbox 360 did exactly that. Actually, they managed to stick a gpu architecture that wouldn't show up in PCs until 2006, into a 2005 console simply because they planned ahead. There is nothing stopping Sony from doing the same thing.
The main reason people offer up why this isn't doable is that there is apparently no way a PS4 releasing in 2014 can use a cutting edge gpu set to release in 2013. However, the Xbox 360 did exactly that. Actually, they managed to stick a gpu architecture that wouldn't show up in PCs until 2006, into a 2005 console simply because they planned ahead. There is nothing stopping Sony from doing the same thing.
H_Prestige
Banned
Sony: "The PS Vita has a PowerVR series 5 GPU"
*7 months later*
Stephen Colbert: "I predict PS Vita will have a PowerVR series 6 GPU"
*7 months later*
Stephen Colbert: "I predict PS Vita will have a PowerVR series 6 GPU"
Auto_aim1
MeisaMcCaffrey
Stephen Colbert said:
The hardware manufacturers have access to prototype hardware but they will only put that if they feel it makes sense. Times change and GPU tech has evolved. Imagine the power requirement if they go for a GTX 570 equivalent GPU. This was not an issue when MS went with the Xenos. If they are aiming for a reasonable price of $400 to $450 (which they should be), you can pretty much forget about a cutting edge 2013 GPU.
Stephen Colbert
Banned
zomgbbqftw,
Backseat modding is a strict no no here.
The 360 actually made MS shitloads of money. It wasn't a loss for them.
And yet, they were able to use a better than a cutting edge gpu, at the time of release, and still sell it for $399. They bungled the RROD thing by not doing stress testing, but even in spite of this, things worked out for them.
Going with a cutting edge CGPU like the Maxwell based Project Denver makes a lot of sense for a number of reasons that I already outlined in the OP.
Backseat modding is a strict no no here.
Alrus said:
The 360 actually made MS shitloads of money. It wasn't a loss for them.
And yet, they were able to use a better than a cutting edge gpu, at the time of release, and still sell it for $399. They bungled the RROD thing by not doing stress testing, but even in spite of this, things worked out for them.
Going with a cutting edge CGPU like the Maxwell based Project Denver makes a lot of sense for a number of reasons that I already outlined in the OP.
I think the Xperia Play and Vita are doomed.
The Vita is going to be competing with the iPod Touch/iPhone 5th Gen and roughly equivalent in power and price (on contract for phone). However, unlike the iPod Touch/iPhone, Vita hardware will stay still for 6 years while every year the iPod Touch/iPhone will get more and more powerful than Vita every year, with cheaper games better suited for mobile playing.
The iPhone in particular, since it does almost everything someone could want in a single portable device, is going to obsolete handheld gaming consoles. I know there will be a few hardcore people who cling to the physical controls, but look how that worked out for the keyboard vs touchscreen battle in smartphones. People will prefer the slate pure touch/gyro devices.
The Vita is going to be competing with the iPod Touch/iPhone 5th Gen and roughly equivalent in power and price (on contract for phone). However, unlike the iPod Touch/iPhone, Vita hardware will stay still for 6 years while every year the iPod Touch/iPhone will get more and more powerful than Vita every year, with cheaper games better suited for mobile playing.
The iPhone in particular, since it does almost everything someone could want in a single portable device, is going to obsolete handheld gaming consoles. I know there will be a few hardcore people who cling to the physical controls, but look how that worked out for the keyboard vs touchscreen battle in smartphones. People will prefer the slate pure touch/gyro devices.
Meisadragon said:
I know they have it too, but the problem is how bulky the Vita is, and the problem of it not being a phone. It's not going to be as no-brainer to keep in your pocket at all times. The iPhone is in your pocket at all times, and can do just about everything-in-one so it eliminates the need of carrying anything else.
Stephen Colbert
Banned
Zzoram said:
That second paragraph is my point. If Sony opts to go with a Series 5 gpu right as everyone else is switching over to Series 6 gpus, which are a good 10-20x more capable, they are screwing themselves over.
Series 5 lasted for a full 5+ years. Series 6 likely will be around for that long as well. If Sony makes the leap over to the newest gpu series, even as future phones use a more advanced Series 6 gpu, it wouldn't be as massive a difference between the two that it makes the Vita seem dated. Both gpus would be in the same family and would share the same core architecture. But opting to go with Series 5 right as Apple is about to release Series 6 based devices is a mistake.
But I think you are misguided in thinking the idea of the Xperia Play is doomed to fail, or that actual physical controls are irrelevant. Only a few genres of games work well with just touch and gyro controls. The vast majority of games require competent controls in order to be fun to play.
The Xperia Play's core idea, a fully functional, portable, competent smartphone that is also a full featured gaming machine with good games, and solid controls, is an idea primed to succeed. The problem was the execution. The Xperia Play opted to go with a useless touchpad instead of analog nubs akin to the 3DS. And it's gpu was underspecced so that it had no actual competent games.
Fix both errors, basically release an Xperia Play 2 that packs the same internals as the Vita, and supports most or all Vita games, and use actual analog nubs this time, and make sure the phone part of it is also very competent, and it will be a huge success in the marketplace. The success of the iOS devices as gaming devices solidifies that people do want an all-in-one device that they can play games on, even if they are limited to just a few genres of games. Such an all-in-one device that can be used to competently play a number of different genres of games not possible with touch controls alone, would succeed.
Haint
Member
Fall 2014 consoles with tablets/phones/portables that will be perceived to produce graphics generally on par with PS360 late this year and/or early next year? LOL good luck with that guys. Lot of analysts already argue that market segment is a major threat to consoles with the mainstream masses.
I think the issue is fundamentally different. Traditional hardcore games just aren't suited to be played in 15 minute chunks on a bus, and those are the only games that need physical controls. There are very few people who want to play Uncharted in 15 minute chunks on a bus.
Many types of hardcore mobile games don't even need physical controls, for example Final Fantasy Tactics or Pokemon. Only shooters and platformers do, and the market for those on a handheld is limited. A slate smartphone can handle most hardcore games without physical controls, plus it's much better suited to the casual gaming that people seem more comfortable with playing in 15 minute chunks. Also, physical controls make the device bulkier, and less appealing as a smartphone.
People who buy a handheld gaming device to sit at home and play for 2 hour chunks are doing it wrong. That's what home consoles and PCs are for, and better at doing.
Also, the way to think of it is not iPhone vs Vita, but iPhone alone vs iPhone + Vita, because smartphones are approaching the point where everyone with a cellphone is going to have a smartphone. Handhelds will never reach that level of saturation. Once everyone with money has an iPhone, the Vita has to offer so much more that it's worth carrying a second device around. I believe it's very unlikely that people who already have an iPhone would be willing to carry a Vita with them as well, since one device is easier to carry than two. The Vita only offers a few different games and physical controls over the iPhone, while the iPhone can do everything else the Vita can do, and probably better.
Many types of hardcore mobile games don't even need physical controls, for example Final Fantasy Tactics or Pokemon. Only shooters and platformers do, and the market for those on a handheld is limited. A slate smartphone can handle most hardcore games without physical controls, plus it's much better suited to the casual gaming that people seem more comfortable with playing in 15 minute chunks. Also, physical controls make the device bulkier, and less appealing as a smartphone.
People who buy a handheld gaming device to sit at home and play for 2 hour chunks are doing it wrong. That's what home consoles and PCs are for, and better at doing.
Also, the way to think of it is not iPhone vs Vita, but iPhone alone vs iPhone + Vita, because smartphones are approaching the point where everyone with a cellphone is going to have a smartphone. Handhelds will never reach that level of saturation. Once everyone with money has an iPhone, the Vita has to offer so much more that it's worth carrying a second device around. I believe it's very unlikely that people who already have an iPhone would be willing to carry a Vita with them as well, since one device is easier to carry than two. The Vita only offers a few different games and physical controls over the iPhone, while the iPhone can do everything else the Vita can do, and probably better.
Stephen Colbert
Banned
Zzoram said:
Street Fighter, Mario Kart, Pilotwings, a quick Super Mario level, Smash Bros, a quick match of CoD, and a number of other games disagree prove that's wrong. Those games are a blast to play in 15 minute bursts and yet suck royally with touch controls alone.
Ironically, games like Final Fantasy Tactics or Pokemon (the ones you posit work fine with touch controls) aren't well suited for just 15 minute burst of play.
Zzoram said:
I agree with you. People only have so much room in their pockets. Between wallet, keys in one pocket and a cellphone in the other, there really isn't room for most people to carry a seperate portable gaming device with them without having to carry a seperate bag everywhere they go. It's a pain in the ass. And this pocket space issue is one that has always held dedicated portable gaming devices back from reaching even higher penetration levels, dating as far back as the original Gameboy and Game Gear.
This is one huge reason why iOS gaming is so popular with the general populace that like to game, but not enough to carry a dedicated gaming device with them. Because iOS gaming can be done without you having to carry yet another bulky device with you everywhere you go. What holds iPhone gaming back is the shitty controls it offers for most genres of games.
A competent smartphone with competent gaming controls and competent games (an Xperia Play 2 compatible with Vita games) would succeed in the market for these reasons. And Sony is ideally situated to deliver on this.
Stephen Colbert said:
I agree with that. However, it's not just about time spent playing. You can't concentrate as much when playing on a bus, because you have to keep looking to see if you're at your stop yet. That means games with low concentration requirements are better for mobile play. The traditional hardcore games are very concentration heavy, and my experience is that it's difficult to really get into a game without missing your bus stop.
Lagspike_exe
Member
Same was said for DS vs. PSP. IPad and iPhone even with the latest hardware don't have games that outclass PSP games in almost any way. Hardware doesn't make a platform, games do. And you can't make great games if you sell them for 0.99.Zzoram said:
Lagspike_exe said:
That's the publishers/developers fault. They underpriced their games and hurt their own viability. However, some games do sell at a higher price. Square's RPGs have all been around $10 or higher, with some sales taking them below $10 on occasion. At that price point, they could profit if they sell in large enough volume, which is possible considering how the iOS install base is insanely large, way beyond the handhelds.
Angry Fork
Member
Except that you don't have 1/4th the input functionality in smartphones as you do with physical buttons. Are people really going to try to pretend like Uncharted would work on an iphone with only touchscreen controls? Come on. This is delusional, as long as there are complex games like that there will be a market for handhelds that are capable of playing them.Zzoram said:
They're not competing with each other because the games are so different. It's like saying Elder Scrolls is competing with facebook social games. It just doesn't make sense imo. The demographic that plays games on iphones are not the same as the ones that are gonna be buying/playing Vita. That market with Vita may be significantly smaller, but it's still a viable amount of people. We'll see what happens with Vita but I don't think it's going to flop or do terrible.
AceBandage
Banned
Soroc said:
AMD is supplying the Wii U's and the 720's.
NVIDIA is probably supplying the PS4's.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Xavien said:
I wrote that before they changed the thread title to include 'my speculation'. Before that it read as if he was confirming or leaking specs. Either way, I meant nothing by it...
AceBandage said:
I haven't heard anything about Nvidia supplying for PS4, is there new information?
Barack Lesnar
Banned
Why? It was an interesting read and he put a lot of time into it, which is more than you can say for a lot of other threads.zomgbbqftw said:
Barack Lesnar
Banned
I don't know about anyone else but I enjoy reading these future tech threads over stuff like "LTTP Uncharted 2" for the 57th time, even if it's just speculation. Camineet makes good ones too, although I haven't seen one in a while.