3 Platform Future: Sony + Conlusion

Sony has made all the right moves with the PlayStation 4 thus far, and the PlayStation brand is the strongest of the big 3 when considering all time console sales.

There’s little for me to comment on regarding Sony’s future in the gaming industry. Their $380 million dollar purchase of Gaikai, and upcoming features such as SharePlay on PS4 shows their future in the gaming industry is in the clouds. For Sony, PlayStation will be a service rather than a device per say. That is not to say we won’t have PlayStation consoles, because we most certainly will as technology advances, but ultimately most PlayStation gamers will spend just as much time gaming from non-PlayStation devices (HDTVs, Phones, Tablets, Laptops, etc...) as they will on dedicated PlayStation hardware.

Hardware-wise Sony is the only one of the big three who shouldn’t change. The “PlayStation 5” should stick to the unique offerings of a console, but like the PlayStation 4 should be founded in traditional PC hardware to allow easier porting between the 3 platforms. A multi-core high end AMD CPU + high end AMD GPU, turned APU backed by high-end RAM should keep the PlayStation brand competitive each generation. The sole reason PlayStation hardware will continue to exist outside of being a big profit for Sony via hardware and software, is because technology advances much faster than internet speeds. Streaming full games in 1080p is demanding enough, but what happens when the PS4‘s successor ask to stream 4k content in households? Most homes just aren’t ready for that, and until the average internet speed in the majority of households exceeds 25 Mbps for single homes or 100 Mbps for families we will always need PlayStation hardware.

There’s so little to say about Sony in this 3 platform future, because they’ve pretty much secured their future already, and for this generation they’re the leader in hardware. So to wrap things up I’ll go over the full benefits of what each console in my 3 platform future brings to the table and what they bring as a whole.

Sales average per platform (excludes current platforms):
http://www.vgchartz.com/ana...

The one semi-trustful part of VGChartz

Nintendo = 118.7 per handheld (The success of the DS pushed Nintendo’s handhelds back to the number 1 gaming brand, but 3DS vs. PS4 will determine if Nintendo and Sony switch places once again.)

PlayStation = 115.5m per console (PS2 best selling console of all time, even without it PS averages 94m per consoles, and with the PS3 still selling that number will continue to rise)

Xbox = 54m per console (not bad for the newcomer, but needs one more generation under it’s belt to get a concrete average, although XBO seems like it might sale around that average)

Nintendo = 53.8m per console (The Wii’s success seriously saved Nintendo’s numbers or else it would have been 41.75m)

This data proves that if Nintendo and Xbox want to catch up to the success of the PlayStation brand they have to change their home console business strategy. The PlayStation brand as a console is the most successful and only needs to improve upon what it has accomplished each generation to stay ahead.

Nintendo’s success is easy to see, it’s completely in their handheld division, which is why the N-Fusion device makes complete sense. The home console business averages less than half the PlayStation division, and even the Xbox division has surpassed it on average. Focusing on a fusion device eliminates the alienation of their audience, and puts Nintendo’s entire workforce on maximizing the potential of one wildly successful platform.
http://n4g.com/user/blogpos...

Xbox on the other hand has to try completely different tactics. The Xbox 360 and PS3 had nearly identical game libraries, the PS4 and XBO are nearly identical consoles, and on a worldwide scale Sony is going to win. This is why I believe that making PC gaming accessible to everyone is an area Xbox can dominate on their own with no real competition besides PC gamers making their own gaming PC. Their 50+ million users will continue to support the brand as long as it’s extremely familiar with their current Xbox offerings, and not full on PC, and at the same time PC gamers who often game on low-end rigs have an option to simply buy a PConsole and be set for every 6 years.
http://n4g.com/blogs/detail...

Together this will lead to 3 very different, but 3 very healthy and still competitive gaming options. Gamers will only need to purchase 3 platforms and have access to everything instead of purchasing a PlayStation console, PlayStation handheld, Nintendo console, Nintendo handheld, Xbox, and Gaming PC for the same results and saving traditional multi-console gamers hundreds of dollars.

A one console future is a golden utopia that multi-console owners wish for where Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft can join forces and create the ultimate home console. That’s not going to happen, but this is the closest thing to giving gamers that future. PlayStation and Xbox gamers may be able to play with and against one another for the first time, with MS taking a stronger direction towards PC gaming, and Sony already willing to play fair with PC, and could ultimately allow you to play with your friends regardless of what platform you own via multiplatform games.

The greatest reason I can think of for this 3 platform future is simply “One console, One focus”. Microsoft doesn’t really have this issue, but Sony and Nintendo would benefit from it the most. Their first and 2nd parties can focus all their efforts maximizing one platform instead of splitting teams up among 2 / 3 different platforms. First party abundance would be extremely healthy among those 2 platforms, and in the case of Microsoft going PConsole means they scoop up exclusives that are normally PC only titles. Gaming will be healthier than its ever been, and all 3 platforms will thrive with exclusives, and multiplatform support.

Is a 3 platform future the kind of future you want, or do you still want consoles from the big 3 + handhelds from the big 3 (if Xbox ever enters) = a gaming PC. If you’re normally a single console owner, would you be willing to be a multi-console owner for the first time? Once again let me know what you think and how you feel in the comments.

[TheEternalGamer]

i don't think the PS5 will look like i mean everyone was specualting that the PS4 and Xbox One were going to look futuristic and then look what we got?

a VCR Betamax and a slanted PS2 + 2= 4.

so we can bet that the PS5 may look something like a PS3 and the next Xbox will probably just be Kinect intergrated into the entire console.

were not going to get fancy futuristic hardware. sadly :(

[ABizzel1]

I agree, but honestly the case doesn't really matter that much to me. I'd rather they put that money into the internal hardware. The XBO and PS4 aren't wowing, but they don't look bad either.

The more important thing about to me is how each of the Big 3 handle their next platforms. I seriously hope it works out like I described in these blogs. IT could really expand gaming as a whole, and be the first time where all 3 consoles are widely successful, even moreso than the PS360Wii era.

Nintendo focus on a handheld/console hybrid.
Xbox focus on a PC/console hybrid.
And Sony keeps the current console experience going.

That would be an incredible generation where everyone can focus on one platform, and make it the best it can be.

[s45gr32]

I am sorry but console hardware is going the way of the dinosaurs. With the unability to sell consoles more than $400.00,it really has shown that the hardware advances are no longer there. Tv sets come equipped with dual core processors and the same apps one would find on the console. Time Warner Cable has triple their internet speed to 50mb download, 15mb upload. It's cloud gaming that will take over. Five years or less gamers will see a xbox live,psn,and Nintendo offering services not consoles. The console model is outdated clunky and having gamers pay a monthly fee is more profitable than selling a console. PlayStation Now exists as an alternative for now but don't be surprised that the next tv set a person buys comes with PlayStation Now service built in. The only hardware gamers will buy will be gamepads and smartphones. With the ability to play PlayStation, Xbox games, even Nintendo on the phones on the go. Basically what Onlive started and failed to accomplish, the big three will succeed were Onlive failed that's the reality.

[Brettman2008]

I can't see game streaming being feasible world wide within the next 15 years or so. Internet speeds and expensive data caps are the limitation in many countries. I also think the lag will be an issue. There are so many complaints online with games being only 30fps, with inherently less responsiveness than 60fps, how is the latency ever going to be acceptable for twitch FPS or racing games? I just think the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages. I dread the thought of only being able to game via game streaming. I think that the success of PS4 shows that consoles are still very viable and will be for a long time to come.

[s45gr32]

Asia has the best internet speeds even up to 1gb. The U.S. Time Warner Cable has increased its internet speed to 50mbps, Europe is no slouch either neither is Russia. Were the game industry operates. Only in Latin America internet speeds are lagging. Onlive proved it was feasible to play Crysis PC version on the cloud and on the phone along with Batman Arkham Asylum and L.A. Noire. PlayStation Now may succeed were Onlive failed and Microsoft no doubt will follow suit with its own cloud gaming service. Digital/ Cloud gaming is the future. Consoles as much as I like them are going the way of the dinosaurs. I mean five years ago, DSL was king with its paltry 1.5 mnps internet speed or 900kbps . To go from 1.5 to 50mbps-1gbps in five years with upload going from 50kps to 5mbps. You want to sit here and pretend technology moves at a snail pace . No buddy 5 years ago 3D HDTV sets were the rage,now smart duo core 3D HDTV sets and 4K TVs are making its presence. ......

[Brettman2008]

So you see game streaming possible at 4K resolution? Maybe this is the future but I can't see game streaming ever offering the response times and picture quality of gaming using a console. There will always be more latency and artifacting through game streaming and I don't think gamers will accept it as the only way to game considering the obsession with graphics and game controller responsiveness. I would much prefer a conventional console minus a disc drive to game streaming.

[ABizzel1]

@s45gr32

I agree, but it's not happening any time soon, and especially not next generation (although the push will really being next-gen).

Looking at technology today you can already see what the consoles are likely to be using next-gen. On the CPU side of things a newer AMD FX 8320 is the most likely candidate offering solid performance, 8 cores that are easily 4x more powerful than the current PS4 offerings (which could be bumped up to most likely 12 slight possibility 16), it has a low enough TDP that it can easily be manufactured to drain half it's current draw over the next 6 years (120w -> 60w by 2020), and it's already priced low enough where in 6 years it's cost will be well within console range ($120 now, $60 by 2020).

Sony has just bought a RAM production distributor, which is great for them, because not only are they going to be a potential big developer of mobile RAM (which is a booming industry right now), but they also have the ability to produce their own RAM for the PS5 which is a huge benefit and savings. The amount of RAM is really dependent upon the motherboard but it'll be no less than 16GB and no more than 32GB. 32GB seems like a lot, but if they improve things like video editing and rendering straight from the console, as well as more multimedia feature then it's going to be necessary for the best performance possible. I also think with that much RAM split RAM is the way to go since you have such large pools it doesn't matter.

16GB system DDR4 16GB gaming GDDR6 / eSRAM (PC gaming top-end standard 2015 - 2016)

16GB system DDR4, or 1GB performance eDRAM, 16GB GDDR6 / eSRAM (consoles 2020).

Finally their GPU would more than likely come from AMD once again due to being more fairly priced than NVIDIA. However performance we can only get based on NVIDIA right now and hope that AMD has a competitor (which I'm sure they will), and ultimately the GPU should be around 10 TFLOPS based on where NVIDIA GPUs should rank by 2018. That gives AMD and Sony 2 years to get the price down, and get the power draw down for a "console" (these things are going to be mini PCs now).

You can make a PC like that right now, but it's almost $2,000 for the CPU, GPU, and RAM alone. By the year 2020, that's still going to be a solid performing rig (maybe mid range), but it's also going to be a $400 - $500 console with much better optimization, so console gaming isn't going anywhere technologically speaking.

Yes there are some internet companies here in the states that are pretty much ready for HD and 4k streaming (Google Fiber being another). But how many homes actually have those plans, and how widespread it is are the problems. PlayStation is a worldwide product and the average world wide internet speed in only 4 Mbps and in 6 years to raise up to 7 Mbps. That future just isn't ready yet, and if Sony forces it, then they'll alienate their audience which is why hardware is required for at least 1 more generation.

For now and the foreseeable future it's just a side option, but come talk to me in 15 years or so and I'll agree with you on it becoming the main option for gaming. The technology is almost ready, it's the people who aren't.