PS4 announcement this year would be distracting - PS3 Just hitting it's stride

[bdoughty]

http://au.ps3.ign.com/articles/121/1218944p1.html

Today, IGN spoke at length with Sony Computer Entertainment America's CEO and President Jack Tretton about all things PlayStation. The PlayStation Vita took center stage in the discussion, but inevitably, the next generation of PlayStation consoles came up.

When asked if the rumors of there being no PlayStation 4 reveal in 2012 were true, Tretton talked about how Sony constantly iterates and is always working on what's next for the PlayStation brand.

"In terms of when you talk about [the next generation] and when you announce it, it really depends on the health of the existing platform and the other things you have going on," Tretton remarked. "And right now, we're focused on PlayStation 3, and I've got another platform (PlayStation Vita) to get out the door in seven days, so I don't want to be thinking about trying to launch new technology anytime soon. I want to focus all our energy on our console business, which is really just hitting its stride, and Vita, which really deserves a dedicated push from us."

Tretton concluded, "I, quite frankly, would be very distracted if I had to be talking about next generation hardware this year," insinuating that PlayStation 4, in line with rumors supporting it, wouldn't be seen or heard from in 2012.

Look for the full content of our interview with Jack Tretton soon here on IGN.



Borrowed from NeoGaf

July 2008: PlayStation 3 is "hitting its stride".

February 2010: PlayStation 3 is just hitting its stride.

June 2011: PlayStation 3 is only just now hitting its stride.

------------------


I am a PS3 owner but I also follow the NPD sales threads and it is in no way hitting its stride. Another late entry into the console market will only spell more doom for Sony.

[morsdraconis]

Sony would be stupid not to just back out of the console wars altogether. Really, the only people that EVER buy a Sony console are the ones that hate Micro$oft enough to not buy their console. Even now, after all the time that it's been out and making games, there are, literally, like 6 games worth playing on the entire console that are PS3 exclusive. That's pretty damn sad.

[I OU a Beatn]

I don't know about that. God of War, Killzone, SOCOM, Resistance, Twisted Metal, Uncharted, Gran Turismo, inFAMOUS, LittleBigPlanet, and MLB The Show are all very high quality exclusives. There's also a new Sly Cooper game coming out, and let's not forget about The Last of Us. Starhawk is releasing soon and if you judge it based on the beta, it's going to be the shooter of the year. Your statement reads to me like something someone would say about Microsoft. Microsoft is the one that has a very porous library when we're talking exclusives. They have Gears, Halo, Fable, Forza, and that's it.

Sony would be utterly stupid to bow out of making consoles. They're less than 4 million units worldwide behind the 360, and when you consider they were a full year behind the 360 and factor in how SHITTY their online service is compared to Live, it's pretty remarkable. The Playstation name sells...simple as that.

[bdoughty]

Microsoft is the one that has a very porous library when we're talking exclusives. They have Gears, Halo, Fable, Forza, and that's it.

I would have to agree with you there. That is the reason I bought a PS3, to play the exclusives. Plus you left off a few others. The Last Guardian (TBD), Heavy Rain, Yakuza series, Motorstorm, Metal Gear Solid 4, Ratchet and Clank, Hot Shots Golf (time for a sequel) and a few others.

If Sony puts themselves a year or so out again, with all the issues you already mentioned, they might dig that hole they can't get out of. We can talk hardware sales and how 360 has just been knocking it out of the park this past year, the kicker is that they have dominated the multi-platform market and while PS3 has slowly made it's way up, they are still taking big lumps. Where they failed royally is coming out a year later with a system that was immensely harder to program for, especially 3rd parties, making people pick up 360 copies of multi-platform games. Sure you have Blue-Ray but the majority of games shown side by side with the 360 are generally ties or in many cases favoring the 360.

They also told us to get a second job to afford the price of the PS3 at launch, might want to avoid that line of thinking next time.

[ram29jackson]

a guy at a video game store put it to me this way...its been surveyed..the adult with a good paying job owns a PS3..the cheetos eating,weed smoking teenager owns an xbox360.....

[steelerfan]

a guy at a video game store put it to me this way...its been surveyed..the adult with a good paying job owns a PS3..the cheetos eating,weed smoking teenager owns an xbox360.....

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk

[psusnoop]

a guy at a video game store put it to me this way...its been surveyed..the adult with a good paying job owns a PS3..the cheetos eating,weed smoking teenager owns an xbox360.....

.

[SmoothPancakes]

I take offense at that statement. First, I'm 24 (will be 25 on April 15th), so I'm not a teenager. Second, while I don't mind cheetos, I haven't had them in years. And third, I don't smoke weed, or beyond a cigar once every one or two years, smoke at all. I drink whiskey, brandy, scotch and cognac.

[Deuce]

a guy at a video game store put it to me this way...its been surveyed..the adult with a good paying job owns a PS3..the cheetos eating,weed smoking teenager owns an xbox360.....

Man, I need to buy me an xbox360! Those kids have all the fun!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DariusLock]

I get the best of both worlds.

Haven't started Gears 3 yeat so I have not bought Live tho.

[CLW]

a guy at a video game store put it to me this way...its been surveyed..the adult with a good paying job owns a PS3..the cheetos eating,weed smoking teenager owns an xbox360.....

Look both consoles have their + and - for me I prefer Sony: (1) due to the better track record as far as not buying a POS out of the box that crashes (my launch PS1; PS2; PS3 all made it completely through the cycle with no issues); (2) Free online play (I don't care how much "better" live is I will NEVER pay just so I can play video games online) (3) the controller.

[I OU a Beatn]

(I don't care how much "better" live is I will NEVER pay just so I can play video games online)

Don't bet on that. There's been numerous reports over the past year or so that have suggested Sony has taken notice at the large amount of money Microsoft is making off of Live, which is exactly why they implemented PS Plus. I'd say it's almost a certainty Sony will eventually go to a similar model for online play that Microsoft has, meaning it's going to be a monthly fee.

I also never got the whole argument when it comes to system preference. Yes, I know there's a lot of people out there that have a very weird brand loyalty obsession to one company(which I will never, ever understand), but I'd like to think that most people realize each system has it's advantages and disadvantages over the other. Xbox Live absolutely destroys PSN, there's no doubt about it. It has cross game chat, it has achievements, it has the party system, it has cross game invites, everything is so quick and snappy, game updates never last more than 2 minutes, etc...

PS3 has game updates that literally last 45+ minutes and even more depending on your connection, no cross game chat, the interface is blah, and the in game XMB is absolutely the slowest loading thing I've ever used in my life. On the flip side, the PS3 has the exclusive games and better 3D support.

I ESPECIALLY don't understand the whole "don't have a job if you pick 360 over PS3" reference. That remains the single dumbest statement I read on a daily basis and I read it all the time. I assume it means that the PS3 costs more so only people with jobs would be able to afford it, but what the fuck? The PS3 is by far the cheaper console in the long run, so I really have a hard time wrapping my head around that one.

[CLW]

Don't bet on that. There's been numerous reports over the past year or so that have suggested Sony has taken notice at the large amount of money Microsoft is making off of Live, which is exactly why they implemented PS Plus. I'd say it's almost a certainty Sony will eventually go to a similar model for online play that Microsoft has, meaning it's going to be a monthly fee.

I also never got the whole argument when it comes to system preference. Yes, I know there's a lot of people out there that have a very weird brand loyalty obsession to one company(which I will never, ever understand), but I'd like to think that most people realize each system has it's advantages and disadvantages over the other. Xbox Live absolutely destroys PSN, there's no doubt about it. It has cross game chat, it has achievements, it has the party system, it has cross game invites, everything is so quick and snappy, game updates never last more than 2 minutes, etc...

PS3 has game updates that literally last 45+ minutes and even more depending on your connection, no cross game chat, the interface is blah, and the in game XMB is absolutely the slowest loading thing I've ever used in my life. On the flip side, the PS3 has the exclusive games and better 3D support.

I ESPECIALLY don't understand the whole "don't have a job if you pick 360 over PS3" reference. That remains the single dumbest statement I read on a daily basis and I read it all the time. I assume it means that the PS3 costs more so only people with jobs would be able to afford it, but what the fuck? The PS3 is by far the cheaper console in the long run, so I really have a hard time wrapping my head around that one.

Sony may very well require you to pay to play online at some point in the future. However, if/when that happens that will be the END of my online playing days. I'm nearly 32 now with a wife (and some day soon a family). For me playing online is nice but if I have to pay additional for it I'll just play offline or (my wife's prayers will have been answered) and I'll just hang the controllers up.

I'm sure I'm in the minority the question for Sony is will paying for online play cost them more customers like me than they can make up by charging $X /month.

[I OU a Beatn]

I don't know, but I'm guessing that's why they still offer online play for free. I know several people who went with the PS3 solely because of the free online play, and while that doesn't matter to me, I know it does for a lot of people. I always saw PS Plus as a way to test just how many people are willing to pay a monthly fee for a service whenever the content is worth the price.

Of course, then again, Vita has a party system similar to Live and it's free to use and play online, so maybe Sony really is planning on allowing free online play and focusing on PS Plus to bring in additional revenue.

[CLW]

I don't know, but I'm guessing that's why they still offer online play for free. I know several people who went with the PS3 solely because of the free online play, and while that doesn't matter to me, I know it does for a lot of people. I always saw PS Plus as a way to test just how many people are willing to pay a monthly fee for a service whenever the content is worth the price.

Of course, then again, Vita has a party system similar to Live and it's free to use and play online, so maybe Sony really is planning on allowing free online play and focusing on PS Plus to bring in additional revenue.

Perhaps Sony gives a "no frills" online system for people like me and for guys like you a more Live like PSN. I dunno seems to me that when you shell out several hundred $ for a system and $60 for a game that ought to already come with the ability to play online. I don't play CPU games often but do the companies that make those games charge people to play the game online?

[JBHuskers]

Hands down, I think the new gen of systems were just some rumors that people ran with. Right now isn't the time.

[I OU a Beatn]

I don't know, I'd almost bet the next Xbox is at least teased at E3 this year, if not fully revealed and pegged for a 2013 release. I don't think Sony is at that point, even though they probably need to be. I don't think Sony can afford to allow themselves to get beaten to the market again, but if I had to guess, 2013 reveal with 2014 release. I'm personally not even ready for the next generation...I still feel this generation has a ton to offer. The Last of Us is just one example of that.

[bdoughty]

Gotta disagree there JB, Microsoft is no dummy and will not be giving the Wii U a year lead. While E3 is coming up, it might get announced at the Game Developers Conference in March. The original Xbox was announced at the GDC.

[JBHuskers]

Gotta disagree there JB, Microsoft is no dummy and will not be giving the Wii U a year lead. While E3 is coming up, it might get announced at the Game Developers Conference in March. The original Xbox was announced at the GDC.

To me, WiiU isn't really next gen. More like it's an attempt to catch the other two.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[SmoothPancakes]

To me, WiiU isn't really next gen. More like it's an attempt to catch the other two.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

That was my thoughts exactly. MS and Sony could both wait two more years to even announce new consoles and they would still never be threatened by the WiiU.