Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Sony's Kaz Hirai Hints at Xbox 720 Reveal Before PS4

By - Source: IGN | B 40 comments

Too shy to go first, Sony?

While Microsoft is keeping pretty quiet about the next generation of the Xbox, Sony has spoken about the PS4 a number of times over the last couple of weeks. Last week, Sony's vice president of home entertainment, Hiroshi Sakamoto, confirmed to Spanish language site Emol that the company's next generation of PlayStation would see an E3 or earlier announcement. However, it seems that though we may see a PS4 announcement in the next six months, the Xbox 720 may actually be announced before the PS4.

According to Sony's President and CEO Kaz Hirai, the company may actually wait for Microsoft to go first to avoid being one-upped. IGN points to a quote in The Times accredited to Hirai, which reads as follows:

"Why go first, when your competitors can look at your specifications and come up with something better?"

Hirai has a point. Cast your mind back to 2011 and the unveiling of the 10.1-inch Galaxy Tab at Mobile World Congress. You'll remember that the iPad 2 was unveiled shortly after and Samsung felt threatened enough to go back to the drawing board.

"We will have to improve the parts that are inadequate," a Samsung exec was quoted as saying at the time. "Apple made it very thin."

However, while tablets suffer from a relatively short product life cycle, gaming consoles tend to stick around for quite a while. Look at the PS3. It was first launched at the end of 2006. Though it has gone through some changes since then, we haven't seen a completely new PlayStation since then. If Sony's Hiroshi Sakamoto May/June schedule remains true, we learn about the Xbox 720 before E3 as well.

Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback

Discuss
Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the News comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 20 Hide
    greghome , January 23, 2013 11:43 AM
    Maybe....it's because of this kind of attitude......there's been a lack of innovation and lack of profitability at Sony lately....

  • 13 Hide
    Anonymous , January 23, 2013 11:59 AM
    They can't change much in a short timeframe. Maybe HDD capacity, or amount of RAM, the case, etc. He probably just knows that there's no way the PS4 is going be ready before the new XBox, so he's just trying to get good press from an inevitable occurrence.
  • 11 Hide
    godfather666 , January 23, 2013 11:49 AM
    Are they really able to change much within a short time frame? You can change the price, but I don't know about how much you can change in the specs so late in the game - I'm guessing very little.
Other Comments
    Display all 40 comments.
  • 20 Hide
    greghome , January 23, 2013 11:43 AM
    Maybe....it's because of this kind of attitude......there's been a lack of innovation and lack of profitability at Sony lately....

  • 11 Hide
    godfather666 , January 23, 2013 11:49 AM
    Are they really able to change much within a short time frame? You can change the price, but I don't know about how much you can change in the specs so late in the game - I'm guessing very little.
  • 13 Hide
    Anonymous , January 23, 2013 11:59 AM
    They can't change much in a short timeframe. Maybe HDD capacity, or amount of RAM, the case, etc. He probably just knows that there's no way the PS4 is going be ready before the new XBox, so he's just trying to get good press from an inevitable occurrence.
  • 5 Hide
    CaedenV , January 23, 2013 12:02 PM
    I have no doubt that Sony will have hardware that will knock the socks off of the NextBox, and going 2nd on their product announcement is just fanfair so that when MS gives their product announcement that Sony can try and steal their thunder.

    But you know what the lesson learned was this last console generation? Price does not matter (to a point), console sales do not matter, system specs do not matter. The only thing that really truly matters in the console world is the games selection. The Wii was cheap, profitable per sale, and sold tons and tons of units... but there are no (well, to be fair; very few) good games on it, so it was the least profitable platform in the end. The PS3 was the hardware beast, and they managed to track price with the xBox360 in spite of the hardware cost difference... but most of the major releases for the PS3 were also on the xBox. xBox was not the best value in hardware, nor did it have much in the way of innovation, but it simply has games, and has been focused on the GAME ecosystem, and so while the xBox has not exactly broken any records on sales or specs, it enjoys the most active community at the end of it's life cycle because it has the most game sales.

    So Sony, we sadly do not care what your next console looks like. We do not care about your system specs and show-boating. What we want is game selection, which means you need to start kissing some royal developer A$$ and ensure that you have the easiest platform to develop for, with the lowest entry cost, and with the best developer support group. You did it with the PS2, and I still enjoy that platform better than any current console, but unless you can do it again then the PS division will be axed in the process of Mother-Sony restructuring to avoid going out of business.
  • -8 Hide
    k7mm , January 23, 2013 12:22 PM
    PS3 and 360 have not lived up to their hype ...now they are hyping up the new stuff.
  • -2 Hide
    chicofehr , January 23, 2013 12:34 PM
    I got a PC so I'm ready to play the XBOX 1080 and PS4 games now :p 
  • 8 Hide
    Anonymous , January 23, 2013 12:40 PM
    I think they have done an excellent job of living up to their hype. I have enjoyed both for a number of years. Both have their strengths, but we are talking about 6+ year old hardware now. Considering that fact, I think they are doing extremely well.
  • -8 Hide
    ceeblueyonder , January 23, 2013 12:53 PM
    anyone excited bout this ps4? rumored to have a quadcore amd A10 equivalent cpu and a HD 6670 gpu? i don't think this hardware can even play BF3 in medium settings at 1080p. who cares who announces their consoles first.

    with those kind of specs sony, i am afraid future ps4 games will look almost the same as ps3 games of now. unless i am missing something, it looks like next gent sony ps4 is not next gen but swapped parts or swapped generation.

    i know, it's just called we have a new console and a new number generation.

    the other camp has a "next-gen" like spec sheet with an 8-core cpu from the powerpc line (drool) but afraid the hardware will have crappy quality and i don't even wanna mention that live thing. it's like paying a toll fee to get to nyc and then another fee to get to to say times square. why is that company so evil?
  • -6 Hide
    sna , January 23, 2013 1:27 PM
    ...

    is it too hard to make a new console with high end technology we have today ?

    I think not. so stop being greedy and do it ...

    you dont have to wait ...
  • 1 Hide
    CaedenV , January 23, 2013 1:58 PM
    ceeblueyonderanyone excited bout this ps4? rumored to have a quadcore amd A10 equivalent cpu and a HD 6670 gpu? i don't think this hardware can even play BF3 in medium settings at 1080p. who cares who announces their consoles first.with those kind of specs sony, i am afraid future ps4 games will look almost the same as ps3 games of now. unless i am missing something, it looks like next gent sony ps4 is not next gen but swapped parts or swapped generation. i know, it's just called we have a new console and a new number generation. the other camp has a "next-gen" like spec sheet with an 8-core cpu from the powerpc line (drool) but afraid the hardware will have crappy quality and i don't even wanna mention that live thing. it's like paying a toll fee to get to nyc and then another fee to get to to say times square. why is that company so evil?

    what rock are you under?
    PS4 and Nextbox look to be very similar in hardware with the exception of the GPU and Ram. This will bring consoles up a gaming performance of approximately a Core2Quad, but without the Ram bottleneck of DDR2. For PC gaming, sure, that is modest, but for console gaming that is a HUGE upgrade, and I don't think that you can discount just how important that is.

    The really important thing is that these next gen consoles will be x86, which means it will be much easier to port games to the PC. This is especially important on the NextBox side of things as there is potential for there to not be any exclusive console titles. I mean, if we are running PC hardware already, what developer would not want to release for both the NextBox and Windows PCs? All that MS has to do is require the use of Win8 to play the games, and they will be sold on the idea.
  • 3 Hide
    kartu , January 23, 2013 2:07 PM
    So many comments that miss the point.
    Sony doesn't want to REVEAL their thingie before M$ does.
    Note that revealing it and shipping it are 2 different ghints.

    From all the rumours, Sony's toy has half of the RAM of M$ version on one hand, on the other it's much faster thant M$ version on top of Sony's OS eating modest amounts of it (512Mb vs ~2Gb on Microsoft, I wonder if they seriously put something based on W8 in there)
  • 0 Hide
    badtaylorx , January 23, 2013 2:13 PM
    OR, Sony,
    You could put out a product that you have the utmost confidence in. One that can play games in full HD at a 60fps rate and just let the product respond to Micro$oft for you
  • 0 Hide
    DRosencraft , January 23, 2013 2:19 PM
    hastenDear Sony,Learn from your mistake last generation and realize first to market is essential - like every generation of consoles.Sincerely,Everyone with eyes


    I wonder where you seem to get the idea that first to market is the end-all, be-all of success. People look at Apple all the time and talk about how they were first to market with MP3s, smartphones, and tablets, but they weren't first. They just did it with more excitement. If anything Sony proved that not to be the case. They've outsold Xbox despite being so much more expensive and releasing a year later. Could they have done even better if they released at the same time or before, perhaps, but it shows that just being first isn't as important as what you are able to deliver. I won't hate on Xbox - I have one and it's saved me from a lot of days of boredom. But I would much prefer to be able to play the PS3 (my orig. broke and haven't been able to afford a new one).
  • -2 Hide
    ceeblueyonder , January 23, 2013 2:33 PM
    CaedenVwhat rock are you under?PS4 and Nextbox look to be very similar in hardware with the exception of the GPU and Ram. This will bring consoles up a gaming performance of approximately a Core2Quad, but without the Ram bottleneck of DDR2. For PC gaming, sure, that is modest, but for console gaming that is a HUGE upgrade, and I don't think that you can discount just how important that is.The really important thing is that these next gen consoles will be x86, which means it will be much easier to port games to the PC. This is especially important on the NextBox side of things as there is potential for there to not be any exclusive console titles. I mean, if we are running PC hardware already, what developer would not want to release for both the NextBox and Windows PCs? All that MS has to do is require the use of Win8 to play the games, and they will be sold on the idea.


    i don't think i am living in a rock since i mentioned rumored specs of ps4 having a quad-core amd A10-equivalent cpu and an HD 6670 equivalent gpu. those are rumored specs i have read, which proves that it isn't me living in, around, over or under any rock.

    i am just saying that i am not excited by sony's ps4 rumored specs since in pc terms--that kind of spec is a budget gaming pc, which would be hard pressed to run BF3 in medium settings at 1080p. i could be wrong. maybe an AMD A10-5800k with integrated gpu can run BF3.

    my point is that 7 or so years ago when the PS3 came out--it was more exciting since it touted a nonexistent cpu, aka "cell processor"--one of the first multi-processors ever made. so, if one bought a ps3 at launch, one essentially was buying the future. albeit, an expensive $600 future, but still, no cpu at that time in PC or consoles had 8 processors (one was locked, one reserved for OS and 6 for games). an 8 core processor today cost in the thousands. on the gpu side, nvidia was co-developing a custom GPU for the ps3, which hadn't been released and was at the time of ps3's launch--one of the most powerful gpu's in pc or console land.

    in comparison, the ps4, all of its parts seems to be from last year. meh news. it doesn't matter if sony announces it first, last, who cares, if the announcement is meh.
  • 1 Hide
    game junky , January 23, 2013 3:16 PM
    Sony, Sony, Sony - haven't you learned from the early days of the PS3/Xbox ware. First to market means you get to reap the benefits of being the only game in town. I hope this means they're trying to reduce the cost of their console without it negatively impacting the quality of the gaming/user experience.

    I currently just use my PS3 as a BD player anyway, just wish they would cowboy up and go toe to toe with Microsoft at near simultaneous launches.

  • -4 Hide
    Anonymous , January 23, 2013 3:57 PM
    My current gen GTX 690 already blows away the next gen consoles lol.
  • 4 Hide
    CaedenV , January 23, 2013 4:02 PM
    ceeblueyonder i am just saying that i am not excited by sony's ps4 rumored specs since in pc terms--that kind of spec is a budget gaming pc, which would be hard pressed to run BF3 in medium settings at 1080p.

    And that would be your problem, you cannot look at console specs and assume that you are going to get performance anything like you will on the PC side of things. Back in the PS2 days the console could do some really impressive things, but it was nowhere near the power of the Pentium 2 and 3 processors popular at the time. Same with the PS3, when it came out it had nowhere near the power of modern Pentium 4 and Core series processors... and yet it did just fine for what it was. You are looking at dedicated hardware, with an OS designed to stay out of the way, and developers who are often coding for the specific device rather than using a more generalized language like DirectX. Meanwhile on the PC side you have a wide varieity of hardware, an OS that is prioritized before the game, and the use of generalized coding which makes all games run slower than they could.

    Plus, consoles only have to do 1080p at 30fps, because that is all that most TVs will take, and it is the industry standard. Also, consoles have never had to do AA or AF, which is pretty much required on the PC side. These next consoles might actually be able to do a little bit of it, but if a console game does not have it, it is not going to bring the ire of the fan base. Consoles simply do not have as much that they have to do, and all of that overhead has a huge performance cost on the PC, and brings large advantages to the console.

    In short, no, you were still wrong in your original post. This is not a step sideways, this is a major increase in console hardware. Granted, not as major as I would like it to be, and PCs will always have an edge on consoles; But at this stage in the game, any major improvement in consoles will bring an exponential improvement to the PC market. Because of the new console launch I am expecting to see some nice graphics on the new consoles, and absolutely lifelike graphics on the PC, and that will be a nice change to see.
  • -1 Hide
    badtaylorx , January 23, 2013 4:24 PM
    i hate consoles......

    (just wanted to try the negative option in the check circle above)
  • 2 Hide
    jtenorj , January 23, 2013 4:57 PM
    Quote:
    i don't think i am living in a rock since i mentioned rumored specs of ps4 having a quad-core amd A10-equivalent cpu and an HD 6670 equivalent gpu. those are rumored specs i have read, which proves that it isn't me living in, around, over or under any rock.

    i am just saying that i am not excited by sony's ps4 rumored specs since in pc terms--that kind of spec is a budget gaming pc, which would be hard pressed to run BF3 in medium settings at 1080p. i could be wrong. maybe an AMD A10-5800k with integrated gpu can run BF3.

    my point is that 7 or so years ago when the PS3 came out--it was more exciting since it touted a nonexistent cpu, aka "cell processor"--one of the first multi-processors ever made. so, if one bought a ps3 at launch, one essentially was buying the future. albeit, an expensive $600 future, but still, no cpu at that time in PC or consoles had 8 processors (one was locked, one reserved for OS and 6 for games). an 8 core processor today cost in the thousands. on the gpu side, nvidia was co-developing a custom GPU for the ps3, which hadn't been released and was at the time of ps3's launch--one of the most powerful gpu's in pc or console land.

    in comparison, the ps4, all of its parts seems to be from last year. meh news. it doesn't matter if sony announces it first, last, who cares, if the announcement is meh.


    You got it all wrong. Cell was a nightmare to code for(only the PPC was a real core while the SPCs were floating point slaves) and the "reality sythesizer" in the PS3 was similar to a 7950gt or 7800gtx 512 but with the weird combo of 256MB GDDR3 and shared 256MB XDRAM. Core 2 Duo(released earlier in the year) was a better cpu than that of the 360 or ps3(with I believe Core 2 Quad coming out first of November that year) and the 8800gtx came out early November too(I think it was election day. Not a major election, but maybe for governor in Iowa?). Even the 8800gts 640 was as good as 2 7800gtx 512 or 7950gt in sli(7900gx2 or 7950gx2).

    When the 360 came out around Thanksgiving 2005(a year before the ps3), It had a hyper threaded triple core processor running at 3.2ghz(each core similar in performance to a 3.2ghz P4 HT or A64 3200+ 2ghz 512k L2 cache) and no dual core cpu on the market could meet or beat it for multi thread performance( PD 840 EE OCed to 4ghz was like a A64 x2 4800+ with EE955 and FX-60 arriving around Christmas and New Year's respectively). The gpu in 360 was kind of like 2 x1800xl 512MB in crossfire with perfect scaling(though no config like that ever existed) and was beaten later in January by the introduction of the x1900xtx and x1900xt(both of which beat the 7800gtx 512 and 7950gt).

    For a brief period of time, the 360 was the most powerful single gpu consumer computing product available(not counting expensive dual socket server motherboards). PS3 was never a platform with the highest performing CPU or GPU available on the consumer market( C2D and C2Q came before the PS3 version of Cell. x1900xtx, x1900xt, x1950xtx/cf, 7900gtx, 7900gto, 7900gx2, 7950gx2, 8800gtx and 8800gts came before Reality Sythesizer).

    Now if the a10 in ps4 is like the highest end desktop version, it might be able to run in crossfire(optimized for best scaling on ps4 games) with a hd6670/hd7670 and be playable in BF3 at 1080p on ultra(except fxaa instead of msaa, no motion blur and ssao instead of hbao).
  • -3 Hide
    ceeblueyonder , January 23, 2013 5:01 PM
    CaedenVAnd that would be your problem, you cannot look at console specs and assume that you are going to get performance anything like you will on the PC side of things. Back in the PS2 days the console could do some really impressive things, but it was nowhere near the power of the Pentium 2 and 3 processors popular at the time. Same with the PS3, when it came out it had nowhere near the power of modern Pentium 4 and Core series processors... and yet it did just fine for what it was. You are looking at dedicated hardware, with an OS designed to stay out of the way, and developers who are often coding for the specific device rather than using a more generalized language like DirectX. Meanwhile on the PC side you have a wide varieity of hardware, an OS that is prioritized before the game, and the use of generalized coding which makes all games run slower than they could.Plus, consoles only have to do 1080p at 30fps, because that is all that most TVs will take, and it is the industry standard. Also, consoles have never had to do AA or AF, which is pretty much required on the PC side. These next consoles might actually be able to do a little bit of it, but if a console game does not have it, it is not going to bring the ire of the fan base. Consoles simply do not have as much that they have to do, and all of that overhead has a huge performance cost on the PC, and brings large advantages to the console.In short, no, you were still wrong in your original post. This is not a step sideways, this is a major increase in console hardware. Granted, not as major as I would like it to be, and PCs will always have an edge on consoles; But at this stage in the game, any major improvement in consoles will bring an exponential improvement to the PC market. Because of the new console launch I am expecting to see some nice graphics on the new consoles, and absolutely lifelike graphics on the PC, and that will be a nice change to see.


    i don't care to be wrong. nor do i think my post is even in the context of right or wrong. my main points being not excited.

    to compare pentium 4 vs. the ps3's cell processor was also not my intention. my intent was purely being excited at that time of a console having something different than pc's.... and cutting edge at that time. the gpu was also at the time of the ps3 launch--a powerful gpu in pc terms since it shared the same architecture at the 78oo series, if i am not mistaken--which launched in the same time frame as the ps3.

    in comparison, the rumored specs of the ps4 gpu is an HD6670 equivalent, which is like two yrs old.

    so, i am just meh for the next generation since i don't see anything next about it, in terms of rumored specs.
Display more comments