I think other then streaming I think they might bring back the PS2 backwards compatible and still play PS1 and PS3 games. I don't think there will be PS4 disk games cause unless they change disk formats PS4 game will still look like PS3 games and to me that will be a waste of money. I'm still sticking with my PS3 but i might buy the slim version because I need more memory. Alot of game commings out that takes up alot of memory on my poor thing .

This x 99999999999999999999999999...I had the original version which had backwards compability ...then it YLODd and I had to get a Slim, which is better in every way except for the fact that it DOESN'T HAVE BACKWARDS COMPABILITY!

This.

great and i just got a ps3..... at last they still make games for the older system and the newer for awhile.

Pft. I hear the price tag for the NGP would be upwards of $300. Sony hasn't learned a thing. I say fire the entire top employees and hire some new people,

Anyway, I guess this means the PS3 will get some price cuts. Still, it's kind of early to be giving it the axe, considering the PS2 survived for about 8 to 10 years. The worst part is I bet the PS4 won't be backwards compatible because the higher-ups are a bunch of money-grubbing greedy-pants.

theres really no need for another next gen console.

the only reason is for engine/graphics.

tonnes of games have awesome graphics but just..well.. svck.

a new powerful console wont save the gaming market, intelligent and well thought out games will.

id rather play super metroid on snes than any COD game.

Will Sony's new console not break? I kind of like that about PS3s. If Sony's rushing, this time around, and if they've "learned" to go for a console cheaper than those of their competitors to as great a degree as possible, what does that mean about the quality of a PS4?

Since the Wii was a joke as a gaming console, no actual hard drive not enough hardware to watch movies on or play graphically games, compared to the 360 or PS3, it all depends on Ninentendo's next generation of console. If it's called the Wii 2, that will not be good, but forget the name. It all depends what hardware is in it.

Once the Wii came out, Microsoft jumped the gun and released an early version of the 360 (since it didn't have the HD drive and hence lost the Blu ray wars) PS3 was livid and had to release the PS3 a year or two earlier than they wanted. So unless the Wii 2 is a kick ass console, I don't think Microsoft or Sony will jump the gun this time.

I guess if most of the software sales go to the Wii 2, I don't think we will be seeing a new console for Xbox or PS. Nintendo desperately needs a new console if they want a bigger share of the pie unless they keep wanting kiddie games. Yes I know, the make lots of non kiddie games, but they don't get a big share of the pie, that goes to MS and Sony. I guess at E3 we will see what Nintendo is offereing, and then we will see what "may" happen.

I just got a 360 less than a year ago and everyone's already preparing new consoles? :sadvaultboy:

Heck when the PS3 came out and a few months later there where people already wanting the PS4. I was at a Game X' Change one time and heard some guy asking about it. I was like what kind of technology is out there that can make the PS3 better...I never got a clear answer from him.

At the moment after what happened I wouldn't be surprised if development for this console was delayed. At the moment the PS3 is pretty much as high end as possible imho and Blu-Ray is still king. With the new console they might be showcasing some more powerful processing for increased enemy presence on battlefields. That's one area where computers and consoles struggle is with multitudes of enemies, but with improvements in technology this has gone from 10 to 50.

Hopefully it'll go up to near 250 to 400 enemies on the battlefield at once and possibly near cinematic quality graphics. Biggest things consumers will want is a console that is less than $300 which is where Sony failed with the PS3.

There is always room for improvement.

Maybe, but adding more improved graphics could make for a short gameplay. Kinda the problems with games now a days, they have nice graphics, but you can beat it less then a week.
*Sit's back in rocking chair and recounts days of yore*
I remember a time when games took months or maybe a year to complete and they didn't have realistic graphics but they had great gameplay and always left you with a since of accomplishment. Games today are short and focus to much on online play.

You must be tripping on nostalgia, any game can be beat in a week with the right amount of free time.As for the rest of what you said I don't even know where to begin.

Less than $300? PS4? There's no way in hell a PS4 can launch at that price in the near future and still be a quality product. The 360 didn't even launch at that price. What kind of hardware/low-quality and prone to failure parts are we to be expecting here?

Aside from teeny RAM (or so I've read), the PS3 seems to support some really jaw-dropping graphics (effects and other complicated rendering stuff that I don't know the technical words for) for games that have been truly tuned and crafted for the PS3's hardware (GoW3, Infamous, etc). Okay, I haven't played the games, but from what I've seen on the gameplay videos and screenshots, they sure as hell look better than what I've seen of Skyrim so far.

I've only played demos, but they most certainly are fine-looking games. Killzone 3 and Uncharted 2 are specifically the best, I'd say.

Exactly. And it isn't just the graphics (textures), it's the other complex rendering. I did read a bit about GoW3 and Infamous, and how the developers said they absolutely could not achieve the same rendering (??) on the other consoles. I mean, the whole concept of the Titans in GoW in the background being fully rendered models - NOT animated backdrop paintings - is amazing. And while you have that going on, the Titan that Kraots is walking over is moving, and then there's the enemies moving around on it, too, and then you've got gut-physics when Kratos eviscerates enemies. Holy macaroni! O_o

Ooooh, now I am so tempted to get a PS3, I even have that Gamestop coupon for $100 off.

I didn't think Infamous (We are talking about the first one, correct?) looked special, honestly, but God of War III and the two games I mentioned are indeed very nice-looking, in my opinion. I wouldn't mind some RPGs that looked that good, however, as I honestly don't see why people like those games themselves all too much, but that's just what I think.

It being more expensive doesn't mean that it will be well built. As you said the 360 was over $300 and we all know how well made the original ones were.

The original 360 was $300-$400, if I recall things correctly. The original PS3 was $500-$600, therefore, I could say that price does really matter because the 360's failure rate compared to the PS3's is notable. Cheaper does indeed have a correlation to, well... cheaper. Cheaper parts aren't quite as high quality. If they were to make a PS4 and sell it for less than $300 anytime in the forseeable future, I would guarantee that it would either be weak, highly cheaply built, or a combination of both. Sony's new handheld console costs $250-$300, apparently. If the goal is to outdo the PS3 and still sell at "cheap" (Less than $300 for brand new console with the likely power of a PS4 isn't cheap, it's dirt poor.) prices, it just isn't really feasible around this time.

I know I'll be buying Sony this time around, seeing as I don't care much for shooters now and they are getting more exclusives while Microsoft is throwing money into Kinect.

The PlayStation 3 was expensive for a number of reasons. Sony invested heavily into the Cell and Blu-ray. The former which was just costly in its own right and the latter which was most likely a troublesome endeavor, as evident by the manufacturing difficulties (blue laser diodes) persisting until the time of the PS3's launch. The original PS3 models also had the PS2 hardware in them to achieve backwards compatibility. If I remember correctly, the price didn't come down to $400 until they removed hardware backwards compatibility entirely.

Plus, I believe all three consoles are made by Foxconn, as are iOS devices, Kindle, etc. Fact is, all three are using the cheapest components possible. We want cheaper electronics, they use cheaper components and labor.

RRoD was in all likelihood a design flaw.

Really? That's comforting, then. Still, less than $300 for a launch console at this point in time doesn't really seem possible, does it?

I don't see how, as I doubt Sony will want to take as big of a hit as they did with the PS3. I'd like to think that whatever they come up with will be under $500, but I'm not holding my breath.