Sony: It would be -undesirable- for PS4 to launch significantly later than

the competition.

Having given Microsoft a year's head start in the current generation, PlayStation Europe boss Jim Ryan said it would be "undesirable" for PS4 to repeat that for the next-generation.

With Wii U out next year and Microsoft expected to reveal the next Xbox in 2012 amid suggestions that a number of studios are already making games for a 2013 launch, industry chatter regarding a PlayStation 3 successor has been considerably more muted.

This, coupled with Sony's overall financial position, has led to speculation that the company is behind its rivals with its next-generation planning.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-11-23-sony-it-would-be-undesirable-for-ps4-to-launch-significantly-later-than-the-competition

--------

and there you have it. Sony doesn't want to give a huge lead on launch, compared to what they did with the 360-PS3 launch gap.

And since the Wii U is set to launch mid-late next year? That would mean Sony est. launch for PS4 will be Late 2012 or Early 2013.

The Next-Generation Starts Next Year!!

Also to add to the info "According to some sources, Ubisoft Montreal is already developing content for the Xbox 360 successor using "target boxes" that are designed to emulate the system's intended specs. The same source also said that they expect to receive the first genuine dev kit before Christmas. Those target boxes are said to be PCs that contain off the shelf components as well as GPUs from AMD to closely emulate the system . There are also reports that other developers such as EA are also in obsession of target boxes. Also revealed with absolute confidence that one major Sony-owned studio has now ceased PlayStation 3 development entirely, shifting its focus to developing content for its successor. It is reasonable that Microsoft and Sony don't want to give Nintendo's Wii U a considerable head start,"

For the ones who believe or want to believe that next set of consoles will be powerhouses that will out pace current medium-high ended gaming Pc's are going to be disappointed. Sony and MS are not doing a 360 or PS3 thing again a $400 console will be worth $400 not $600 they are not going to sell them at a lost and wait 3 years after the fact before making a profit.

I'm really not interested in buying a new console next year. Ask me again in mid 2013.

Next gen will probably start 2013 not 2012. If WiiU isn't completely upgraded (specs wise) the next gen starts only when ps4 and 720 are out.silversix_

Ohhh boy.... this can't be good. If Sony rushesh his system to be out with the xbox720 it will come out as a failure. Then again if Sony is racing for it then MS will race for it too maybe they'll both flop and mess up at the same time leaving the Wii-U the only Next Gen console for at least a year. Which by all means would be a good thing because we don't want half assed crap

I think you mean late 2013. PS4 holiday 2013 is fine by me.

In the west, Consoles seem to hit at the end of the year. I'm sure the Wii U will follow that trend and release next xmas.

I'm not interested right now for the PS4, maybe later when I actually know a thing or two, same for the 720.

I'm not buying any of the next gen consoles until they have been out long enough to have a decent library. I bought my PS3 about 9 months after launch and I literally had nothing to play

It starts next year regardless of wether Sony releases their console next year or not. The Wii-U starts the 8th Generation,

Obviously they don't want to be far behind on release. I'd say a month or two is probably fine, but a year is a really long time to wait.

They shouldn't have to wait so long this time though, provided they stick with Blu-Ray and go with either the Cell again, or some other more common type of processor. Blu-Ray and the Cell were holding back the launch of the PS3.

As long as they get out in a good time frame and have a price-point most can swallow, they will likely be number one again.

For some odd reason, I want a Wii U just because it will be the first next-gen home console to launch.

Hopefully there will be a new Zelda game, a spiritual successor to Star Fox Adventures and Donkey Kong 64, Metroid Prime 4, and F-Zero soon after launch.

In the west, Consoles seem to hit at the end of the year. I'm sure the Wii U will follow that trend and release next xmas.

I'm not interested right now for the PS4, maybe later when I actually know a thing or two, same for the 720.

SolidTy

It starts next year regardless of wether Sony releases their console next year or not. The Wii-U starts the 8th Generation,

simomate

And how is the Wii U next gen ?!?

It's Wii with added U.

[QUOTE="SolidTy"]

In the west, Consoles seem to hit at the end of the year. I'm sure the Wii U will follow that trend and release next xmas.

I'm not interested right now for the PS4, maybe later when I actually know a thing or two, same for the 720.

Scumty

Competitive pricing is more important

As soon as Nintendo announced a 2012 launch everyone knew the PS4 and the 720 would be out in 2012. It can't NOT happen. They aren't giving Nintendo the advantage and Sony and MS will launch right next to eachother.

I've said it before and I will say it again (and again and again)...the "head start" theory is total and complete BS. Its a myth. The first console out has NEVER been the winner of a gen. The 360 launched first this gen, with the Wii and Ps3 a year later and the Wii has clearly won. The 360 has barely held off the PS3 and the PS3 launched $200 more expensive.

The only reason the PS3 has failed to catch up sooner or sell more was because Sony was dumb enough to think launching at $600 was a good idea. It wasn't. I'm a lifelong PS fan and when I heard that announcement it was like a kick to the gut. That insane launch price was what hurt Sony, not the "head start".

As soon as Nintendo announced a 2012 launch everyone knew the PS4 and the 720 would be out in 2012. It can't NOT happen. They aren't giving Nintendo the advantage and Sony and MS will launch right next to eachother.

RandomWinner

Sony and MS don't even look at Ninendo as a direct competitor anymore. They don't care if the Wii U comes out 2012 because they already know only Nintendo die-hards will buy it, it will get little third party support, and won't be able to compete graphically with their own new generation of consoles.

I promise you, Sony and MS are mostly worried about each other. Nintendo's Wii U barely factors into their decision.

[QUOTE="RandomWinner"]

As soon as Nintendo announced a 2012 launch everyone knew the PS4 and the 720 would be out in 2012. It can't NOT happen. They aren't giving Nintendo the advantage and Sony and MS will launch right next to eachother.

ZIMdoom

Sony and MS don't even look at Ninendo as a direct competitor anymore. They don't care if the Wii U comes out 2012 because they already know only Nintendo die-hards will buy it, it will get little third party support, and won't be able to compete graphically with their own new generation of consoles.

I promise you, Sony and MS are mostly worried about each other. Nintendo's Wii U barely factors into their decision.

nintendo sold the most consoels this gen....they are really worried about them

I've said it before and I will say it again (and again and again)...the "head start" theory is total and complete BS. Its a myth. The first console out has NEVER been the winner of a gen. The 360 launched first this gen, with the Wii and Ps3 a year later and the Wii has clearly won. The 360 has barely held off the PS3 and the PS3 launched $200 more expensive.

The only reason the PS3 has failed to catch up sooner or sell more was because Sony was dumb enough to think launching at $600 was a good idea. It wasn't. I'm a lifelong PS fan and when I heard that announcement it was like a kick to the gut. That insane launch price was what hurt Sony, not the "head start".

ZIMdoom

I personally think we'll see the next xbox and ps4 in 2013. If anything it will be the Wii U and next xbox holiday 2012 with the ps4 early 2013. I just don't see Sony putting out the Vita and ps4 in the same year. However, if they all released in 2012 I wouldn't be completely surprised. Certains devs are definitely working on launch games as we speak using the "target boxes" previously mentioned.

yet people who get paid to research markets at Sony say differently. Now I agree some what. A 600 dollar launch price hurt the ps3, hell it had the fastest price drop, but taking your word over a Sony exec's is like believing you and not an opponents coaching staff know how to beat the Green Bay Packers. I'll believe the professionals first. The year head start gave MS headway into the market thus securing them competitive market share.cainetao11

You don't have to take my word for anything. You just have to take REALITY over this supposed professional. Let's look at the history of consoles, shall we?

NES launched first and won the gen.

SNES launched 1 year after the Genesis and went on to outsell it by roughly 9 or 10 million units. The first launched console came in last place.

PS1 lanunched a few months after the Saturn and the N64 launched a year after both. The Saturn sold 10 mill, PS1 sold 100mill, and GC 33 mill. Not only did thefirst launched console came in last place, it lost the gen to a completely unsure and untested "new" company entering the market. The first time this has ever happened.

The Dreamcast launched first in 98/99 (JP/NA) with the PS2 in 2000 and GC/Xbox in 2001. DC sold 10 mill, PS2 sold 150 mill, GC sold 21 mill and Xbox 24 mill. Again. The first place console came in last place and the "new" guy this gen who launched 2 years latercame in second.

THIS Gen....360 launched 2005 with PS3 and Wii coming out a year later in 2006. The Wii is currently beating the PS3 and 360 by roughly 30 million sales and the 360 is just barely holding onto second place despite the PS3 launching with a $200 higher price tag.

THAT is reality. Real number and real facts. Apparantly SW forums users as well as Sony's "professional market research team" see this and say, "We have to be FIRST or launch at the same time or else we are teh doomed!"

So where am I wrong here? Taking my word has NOTHING to do with it, you just have to have an ounce of common sense and a moderate understanding of the facts of console history. If there is any sort of "trend" or pattern it is that first place consoles don't come in first place and people should watch out for "new" guys.

nintendo sold the most consoels this gen....they are really worried about them

Mario1331

Nintendo is the only company who makes money off of consoles. However, I believe they sell the fewest games and have the smallest attach rate. They also got those sales appealing to the most fickle and short-term of markets - the "non-gamers" at the expense of further alienating the true, core or long term gamers who really drive the industry and make it profitable.

Sony/MS don't make money off console sales until well into the gen. They make most of their money selling games and other features like BR sales, XBL subscriptions, microtransactions, etc. Areas that are the future of gaming...not motion control and barely-existent online support.

What else is new? Then Sony will lie again and try to drive the hype up... again. Get ready for some "4-D" nonsense in the future.

I made this thread yesterday and people weren't really interested in this news.

If they don't sell them at $400 for a loss then I'm not bothering. Waste of time to think about a console when they are penny pinching. Heard MS gonna do 2 SKU's again. No HDD? Thanks for screwing us again. Plus thanks for holding the game industry back again on PC. Guess we can look forward to more sub par ports and bad graphics. No future proofing = failure for anyone who buy ton's of games and supports a console. Causales don't support consoles. Truth_Hurts_U

86 games :o I have 50 and thought that was a lot

86 games :o I have 50 and thought that was a lotPelon208

I've said it before and I will say it again (and again and again)...the "head start" theory is total and complete BS. Its a myth. The first console out has NEVER been the winner of a gen. The 360 launched first this gen, with the Wii and Ps3 a year later and the Wii has clearly won. The 360 has barely held off the PS3 and the PS3 launched $200 more expensive.

The only reason the PS3 has failed to catch up sooner or sell more was because Sony was dumb enough to think launching at $600 was a good idea. It wasn't. I'm a lifelong PS fan and when I heard that announcement it was like a kick to the gut. That insane launch price was what hurt Sony, not the "head start".

ZIMdoom

I disagree with you.

MS shot themselves in the foot with the RROD fiasco. That imo is what kept the PS3 competitive its first 3 years on the market when the 360's library was clearly superior to PS3's library of games.

After PS3's 3rd year when MS finally released some reliable hardware, PS3's library was good enough to go head to head with 360's and both consoles have been pretty much neck and neck since. IMO, MS could have ran away with this gen if it weren't for their crappy hardware and the only reason MS did so well was because they built up a strong fan base that 1st year when the 360 was the only next gen console available. Launching first may not be the only variable that counts when deciding which console will be the most successful but it sure as hell is an important one.

PS1 launched ahead of the N64 and imo that is why PS1 did so well. Could you imagine PS1 going head to head with N64 launching with Battle Arena Toshinden and Ridge Racer vs the N64 launch that had Super Mario 64 and Wave Race? That would have put Nintendo millions of consoles ahead of Sony and Nintendo almost certainly would have continued that momentum with Golden Eye and Zelda OOT. How about PS2 vs Xbox? The crappy PS2 launch vs the Xbox launch that had Halo. Almost certainly the Xbox would have stole much more market share had the Xbox launched along side the PS2. With a 1 year head start Sony built up a nice stable of exclusives that MS couldn't touch at launch.

[QUOTE="ZIMdoom"]

I've said it before and I will say it again (and again and again)...the "head start" theory is total and complete BS. Its a myth. The first console out has NEVER been the winner of a gen. The 360 launched first this gen, with the Wii and Ps3 a year later and the Wii has clearly won. The 360 has barely held off the PS3 and the PS3 launched $200 more expensive.

The only reason the PS3 has failed to catch up sooner or sell more was because Sony was dumb enough to think launching at $600 was a good idea. It wasn't. I'm a lifelong PS fan and when I heard that announcement it was like a kick to the gut. That insane launch price was what hurt Sony, not the "head start".

EG101

I disagree with you.

MS shot themselves in the foot with the RROD fiasco. That imo is what kept the PS3 competitive its first 3 years on the market when the 360's library was clearly superior to PS3's library of games.

After PS3's 3rd year when MS finally released some reliable hardware, PS3's library was good enough to go head to head with 360's and both consoles have been pretty much neck and neck since. IMO, MS could have ran away with this gen if it weren't for their crappy hardware and the only reason MS did so well was because they built up a strong fan base that 1st year when the 360 was the only next gen console available. Launching first may not be the only variable that counts when deciding which console will be the most successful but it sure as hell is an important one.

PS1 launched ahead of the N64 and imo that is why PS1 did so well. Could you imagine PS1 going head to head with N64 launching with Battle Arena Toshinden and Ridge Racer vs the N64 launch that had Super Mario 64 and Wave Race? That would have put Nintendo millions of consoles ahead of Sony and Nintendo almost certainly would have continued that momentum with Golden Eye and Zelda OOT. How about PS2 vs Xbox? The crappy PS2 launch vs the Xbox launch that had Halo. Almost certainly the Xbox would have stole much more market share had the Xbox launched along side the PS2. With a 1 year head start Sony built up a nice stable of exclusives that MS couldn't touch at launch.

I think both answers had parts of the reasons.

Games and price point

I disagree with you.

MS shot themselves in the foot with the RROD fiasco. That imo is what kept the PS3 competitive its first 3 years on the market when the 360's library was clearly superior to PS3's library of games.

After PS3's 3rd year when MS finally released some reliable hardware, PS3's library was good enough to go head to head with 360's and both consoles have been pretty much neck and neck since. IMO, MS could have ran away with this gen if it weren't for their crappy hardware and the only reason MS did so well was because they built up a strong fan base that 1st year when the 360 was the only next gen console available. Launching first may not be the only variable that counts when deciding which console will be the most successful but it sure as hell is an important one.

PS1 launched ahead of the N64 and imo that is why PS1 did so well. Could you imagine PS1 going head to head with N64 launching with Battle Arena Toshinden and Ridge Racer vs the N64 launch that had Super Mario 64 and Wave Race? That would have put Nintendo millions of consoles ahead of Sony and Nintendo almost certainly would have continued that momentum with Golden Eye and Zelda OOT. How about PS2 vs Xbox? The crappy PS2 launch vs the Xbox launch that had Halo. Almost certainly the Xbox would have stole much more market share had the Xbox launched along side the PS2. With a 1 year head start Sony built up a nice stable of exclusives that MS couldn't touch at launch.

EG101

There is zero evidence the RROD hurt the 360 sales. If you look at their sales numbers from launch right through the RROD "fiasco" you will see their sales were steady if not slowly increasing that whole time. There is zero evidence RROD hurt their sales. Further, the DRE problem didn't hurt Sony and they handled that a million times worse than MS handled the RROD issue.

Further, MS has more than doubled their sales from last gen AND greatly increased their market share in North America making it arguably the #1 console in NA (for core gamers for sure). So it is just theory crafting to argue MS's sales would have been some hypothetically higher number if only RROD didn't happen. This is pure specualtion with zero data to support it.

The PS1 was an unproven and uncertain product. Before the PS1, no other console made by a "third" company survived. None. When I bought the PS1 at launch only one single store in my city carried it and they only had 6 because nobody even knew what the hell a Playstation was if they weren't a gaming nerd like I was. What helped the PS1 wasn't the "headstart" (which it didn't have because Sega was coming off the very popular Genesis), but the TIMING of Sony coming into the race and their policies at the time.

When Sony came out with the PS1, they attracted (and even stole) developers who were once tied to other consoles. FOr example, Square and their Final Fantasy franchise. At that time, developers were fed up with Sega and especially Nintendo trying to control them as essentially owners. Sony promised much lower developer fees, promised to support third party games just as strongly as first party titles AND went so far as to promise not to directly compete against third party developers with first party titles. This was HUGE, especially since Nintendo had along history of imposing their "family" standards on developers and would then release their own Mario title the same time third parties were planning to release their own platformer. Sony was also the first company to really push wierd, innovative and Niche titles, often allowing asian games to be moved over to the NA market. Something that was extremely rare for non-major titles at the time. Hell, Nintendo didn't even bother bringing all FF titles over which is why FF6 in japan was FF 3 in NA.

Add that to the FACT that Nintendo's refusal to use a standard storage medium further increased costs for developers as not only did they pay developer feed, they also had to buy the carts from Nintendo as well. after all that there was no guarantee that developers would have decent sales anyway because Nintendo could just sabatage them by releasing their own big name titles the same week.

If you look back at the PS1's time, it wasn't the headstart that was a benefit to Sony, it was third party developers leaving Nintedo and Sega in droves to focus on the PS instead. It was the massive influx of games as Sony opened the Japanese floodgates to ensure gamers had tons of games to chose from at all times, in all genres and styles.

Sorry, but never in a million years will anyone convince me that the "headstart" matters. There is just zero evidence to support that. It is just another "myth" of gaming that has been repeated so much people start confusing it for "conventional wisdom". And if you believe these myths, then you shouldn't have any faith in the Xbox brand anyway because according to SW "conventional wisdom" the third console of a company is always a failure.

I think launching later wasn't their biggest issue. I think it was a later launch and with a price mark that made the system not at a desirable price point. IMO over $400 is not so desirable and will be an even bigger issue this time around. Of course plenty of people are willing to go for more but that isn't the majority. It seems like lowest price point usually does best.

[QUOTE="Scumty"][QUOTE="SolidTy"]

In the west, Consoles seem to hit at the end of the year. I'm sure the Wii U will follow that trend and release next xmas.

I'm not interested right now for the PS4, maybe later when I actually know a thing or two, same for the 720.

o0HAPPY0o

This time they need to make it affordable, easy to develop for and have a big launch from the start. The Vita seems to be doing all these parts right so far from what they've shown, so as long as they do something similar for the PS4 they should have a much better time next gen.

Launch time isn't too much of a problem presuming they don't launch like 2 years later, but launching within a few months of Microsoft's console should put them in a decent position.

**** nintendo and microsoft for rushing this and next gen's launches. talk about being a detriment to console technology and gaming as a whole

I've said it before and I will say it again (and again and again)...the "head start" theory is total and complete BS. Its a myth. The first console out has NEVER been the winner of a gen. The 360 launched first this gen, with the Wii and Ps3 a year later and the Wii has clearly won. The 360 has barely held off the PS3 and the PS3 launched $200 more expensive.

The only reason the PS3 has failed to catch up sooner or sell more was because Sony was dumb enough to think launching at $600 was a good idea. It wasn't. I'm a lifelong PS fan and when I heard that announcement it was like a kick to the gut. That insane launch price was what hurt Sony, not the "head start".

ZIMdoom

[QUOTE="ZIMdoom"]

I've said it before and I will say it again (and again and again)...the "head start" theory is total and complete BS. Its a myth. The first console out has NEVER been the winner of a gen. The 360 launched first this gen, with the Wii and Ps3 a year later and the Wii has clearly won. The 360 has barely held off the PS3 and the PS3 launched $200 more expensive.

The only reason the PS3 has failed to catch up sooner or sell more was because Sony was dumb enough to think launching at $600 was a good idea. It wasn't. I'm a lifelong PS fan and when I heard that announcement it was like a kick to the gut. That insane launch price was what hurt Sony, not the "head start".

EG101

I disagree with you.

MS shot themselves in the foot with the RROD fiasco. That imo is what kept the PS3 competitive its first 3 years on the market when the 360's library was clearly superior to PS3's library of games.

After PS3's 3rd year when MS finally released some reliable hardware, PS3's library was good enough to go head to head with 360's and both consoles have been pretty much neck and neck since. IMO, MS could have ran away with this gen if it weren't for their crappy hardware and the only reason MS did so well was because they built up a strong fan base that 1st year when the 360 was the only next gen console available. Launching first may not be the only variable that counts when deciding which console will be the most successful but it sure as hell is an important one.

PS1 launched ahead of the N64 and imo that is why PS1 did so well. Could you imagine PS1 going head to head with N64 launching with Battle Arena Toshinden and Ridge Racer vs the N64 launch that had Super Mario 64 and Wave Race? That would have put Nintendo millions of consoles ahead of Sony and Nintendo almost certainly would have continued that momentum with Golden Eye and Zelda OOT. How about PS2 vs Xbox? The crappy PS2 launch vs the Xbox launch that had Halo. Almost certainly the Xbox would have stole much more market share had the Xbox launched along side the PS2. With a 1 year head start Sony built up a nice stable of exclusives that MS couldn't touch at launch.

**** nintendo and microsoft for rushing this and next gen's launches. talk about being a detriment to console technology and gaming as a whole

arbitor365

[QUOTE="SolidTy"]

In the west, Consoles seem to hit at the end of the year. I'm sure the Wii U will follow that trend and release next xmas.

I'm not interested right now for the PS4, maybe later when I actually know a thing or two, same for the 720.

Scumty

[QUOTE="EG101"]

[QUOTE="ZIMdoom"]

I've said it before and I will say it again (and again and again)...the "head start" theory is total and complete BS. Its a myth. The first console out has NEVER been the winner of a gen. The 360 launched first this gen, with the Wii and Ps3 a year later and the Wii has clearly won. The 360 has barely held off the PS3 and the PS3 launched $200 more expensive.

The only reason the PS3 has failed to catch up sooner or sell more was because Sony was dumb enough to think launching at $600 was a good idea. It wasn't. I'm a lifelong PS fan and when I heard that announcement it was like a kick to the gut. That insane launch price was what hurt Sony, not the "head start".

MuayThaiFTW

I disagree with you.

MS shot themselves in the foot with the RROD fiasco. That imo is what kept the PS3 competitive its first 3 years on the market when the 360's library was clearly superior to PS3's library of games.

After PS3's 3rd year when MS finally released some reliable hardware, PS3's library was good enough to go head to head with 360's and both consoles have been pretty much neck and neck since. IMO, MS could have ran away with this gen if it weren't for their crappy hardware and the only reason MS did so well was because they built up a strong fan base that 1st year when the 360 was the only next gen console available. Launching first may not be the only variable that counts when deciding which console will be the most successful but it sure as hell is an important one.

PS1 launched ahead of the N64 and imo that is why PS1 did so well. Could you imagine PS1 going head to head with N64 launching with Battle Arena Toshinden and Ridge Racer vs the N64 launch that had Super Mario 64 and Wave Race? That would have put Nintendo millions of consoles ahead of Sony and Nintendo almost certainly would have continued that momentum with Golden Eye and Zelda OOT. How about PS2 vs Xbox? The crappy PS2 launch vs the Xbox launch that had Halo. Almost certainly the Xbox would have stole much more market share had the Xbox launched along side the PS2. With a 1 year head start Sony built up a nice stable of exclusives that MS couldn't touch at launch.