backtop


Print 61 comment(s) - last by Trisped.. on Feb 6 at 5:19 PM

Sony offered a teaser video on Twitter

Sony's PlayStation Twitter handle posted a video today that teases the next-generation console, which will be announced February 20, 2013.

The PlayStation Twitter account posted a tweet saying, "See the future," with a link to the teaser video for the new console. It doesn't reveal any images of the hardware or gameplay, but rather a vague collection of shapes related to the PlayStation console and controller.

Check out the video here:


The next-generation PlayStation console, dubbed PlayStation 4, is rumored to have a custom chip based on AMD's A8-3850 with a quad-core 2.9GHz processor and a 1GHz graphics card with 1GB memory. Hiroshi Sakamoto, Sony's vice president of home entertainment, recently said that the company planned an announcement at the E3 gaming event in June, but that an announcement could come earlier. Clearly, the latter is true.

Source: Twitter



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

So now...
By Belard on 2/1/2013 4:58:53 AM , Rating: 2
So now... does this mean that MS will rush to promote the next Xbox before FEB 20?

Nobody is expecting some sort of MAJOR mind-blowing features for the next gen consoles. Its only about paying money to MS or Sony and what exclusive titles you want.




RE: So now...
By ktemple on 2/1/2013 9:34:47 AM , Rating: 2
The rumored Xbox design is nice and has the potential to do great things.

The only major mind-blowing features left are novel interface, which no one seems to be able to truly pin down, and graphics, which is being worked on but is a real challenge.

Right now with graphics, the thing is anti-aliasing. What you want, especially going into an era that's 1080p/4K/3D/240Hz, is next-generation anti-aliasing. Supersampling-level antialiasing. If you hear Sony or MS advertising new AA features, they're doing it right. I trust AMD more at the moment to do a great next-gen AA feature than nVidia. nVidia just came out with TXAA, and it's less than what I'd hoped (nice, though!). AMD was working on something that's more promising (forget what they were calling it).

The harder thing is animation. Ever notice how before a game comes out, the screenshots look incredible but then playing the game is less incredible? The game can't animate the images as well as your brain can. Next-gen animation would really set the games apart, but is far easier said than done. For the console side, this is mostly a CPU thing; GPGPU will help.


RE: So now...
By Wolfpup on 2/1/2013 10:33:55 AM , Rating: 2
I've never cared about AA. I turn it off on PC, as I'd always like higher resolutions or other effects-would have to be hitting well over 60FPS with everything maxed out on PC before I'd turn on AA.

The rumors about both consoles are pretty competent, although what I heard most recently it looks like the Playstation 4 should have about 2x the CPU power and 50% more GPU power. But who knows if any of that is right.


RE: So now...
By ktemple on 2/1/2013 10:41:17 AM , Rating: 2
Raising the framerate actually has strong AA properties. It's possible that you actually do care about AA, but prefer the added benefits of high framerate.

It's also possible that you've never seen truly good AA, which is why I use the phrase "next-gen AA." Everything else being equal, including framerate, a game with high-end AA will look unbelievable compared to the alternative. You wouldn't be able to go back. From then on, anything less than ideal anti-aliasing would take you out of the game.


RE: So now...
By Trisped on 2/1/2013 6:52:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I've never cared about AA. I turn it off on PC, as I'd always like higher resolutions or other effects-would have to be hitting well over 60FPS with everything maxed out on PC before I'd turn on AA.
With PCs it is possible to get higher resolution displays then consoles which have to connect to a TV. All reports that I have read indicate that 2x the resolution is worth more then 4xAA, and allows higher FPS. This is still true with the newer AA systems. Throw on top the fact that PCs can have more GPU RAM, more powerful GPUs, and visual settings above what is possible on a console, and AA starts to be a waste of resources.

I personally never turn on AA on my PC unless I have all the other graphic settings turned up to the highest settings.


RE: So now...
By ktemple on 2/2/2013 1:04:46 AM , Rating: 2
That's not completely true, and a narrow understanding of AA. Raising the resolution is "worth more than 4x AA" is a misleading statement because there are several completely different types of AA, and widely different levels of each. Increasing the resolution certainly isn't worth 4x of any high-end AA, or 2x, let alone any next-gen technique, and it does absolutely nothing for temporal aliasing.

Some people also don't seem to realize that "advanced" or "next-gen AA" means advancements in improving the expensive or "wasteful" effects of high-end AA.


RE: So now...
By Silver2k7 on 2/3/2013 3:44:05 AM , Rating: 2
"With PCs it is possible to get higher resolution displays then consoles which have to connect to a TV."

You know there are was 720p TV's.. today there are mostly 1080p televisions.. now there are a few TV's with 2160p (aka 4K or Quad-HD) resolutions, wich will be mainstream eventually.

4K is possibly the highest resolution of a single screen avalible both for TV's and Computer Monitors at this time.


RE: So now...
By Trisped on 2/6/2013 5:19:38 PM , Rating: 2
Not sure what your point is. Consoles are limited to support TV screen resolutions. While you can get 4k screens and use them on a PC, you cannot get the full benefit with today's consoles. I expect even the next generation of consoles will only support up to 1080p.

Even if the new consoles can support 4k screens PCs can already do that and larger, plus they can combine multiple monitors for even more pixels.


RE: So now...
By FITCamaro on 2/1/2013 12:25:47 PM , Rating: 2
How do you figure on the GPU power when both are rumored to use the exact same hardware? The 6670 and the 7770 are the same exact chip.


RE: So now...
By FITCamaro on 2/1/2013 12:26:06 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry 6670 and the 7670.


RE: So now...
By NellyFromMA on 2/4/2013 3:18:48 PM , Rating: 2
Lol good point.


RE: So now...
By ktemple on 2/1/2013 1:33:38 PM , Rating: 2
I don't buy those rumors; not at face value. Even if they do something 7670-based, for example, it's just 7670-based. What they will absolutely do is make sure the chip has next-gen features relevant to their platform agenda, but whether or not they sit atop a 7670 framework is neither here nor there, mostly. The memory subsystem will be custom and parts of the GCN Compute Units will be custom, at the very least.

Then there's the fact that it's just a rumor and it could be GCN2.

Or even nVidia instead. The diagram from the Xbox rumor actually kind of seems that way.

Ultimately, the power will be there. This generation doesn't need crazy hardware, just great memory latency+throughput+capacity, which isn't hard to do now, and advanced filtering and AA, which is the thing to watch to see what they'll do right now.

The group who invents on their own, or works with ATI/nVidia to invent, some smart knew graphics feature(s) is the winner of the tech side. Last time, it was Microsoft. They stuck with the unified RAM, but more importantly that damned eDRAM setup was incredible. They're doing it again, naturally, and if they can improve it that's half a point right there. Couple it with next-gen AA and it's a wrap.

The other stuff is just evolutionary and will pretty much get covered by the advancements we've made in GPGPU and other processing convergence.


RE: So now...
By someguy123 on 2/2/2013 12:39:39 AM , Rating: 2
Where does that theory come from? RSX and Xenos (more so the RSX, unified shaders on the xenos) are marginally "custom" compared to their generic counterparts and their performance not any better per clock/shader unit. Cell was the part that was highly proprietary and it didn't turn out well at all for sony.

Meanwhile the rumor is an 8 core jaguar derivative (which personally makes no sense to me considering the high core count for peak performance that could be obtained with better cores already available) and a 6670/7670. IF the outrageous lowball specs are true then it won't be even close to the bump we saw last cycle.


RE: So now...
By ktemple on 2/4/2013 8:48:03 AM , Rating: 2
We've got the memory covered. The speed and capacity of the memory are going to be a big part of the "bump" for this generation, and memory is cheap and advanced now. The consoles will have custom memory controllers, and with unified memory that means the graphics memory access components will be custom. Huge VRAM capacity is kind of one of the holy grails of computer graphics, so this is a pretty big opportunity.

The Xbox annihilates its contemporaries on performance due to its customizations. It can run 4x MSAA at essentially no penalty, so you get 1) AA all the time and 2) technically inferior hardware keeping up with a more advanced design (PS3). And then its scaler can upscale the render to 1080p with really good fidelity. If you're talking about the GFLOPS on the component or whatever, you might start making good arguments. But when you put everything together, the customization/optimization piece gets you every time. That's smart design.


RE: So now...
By FITCamaro on 2/1/2013 12:26:29 PM , Rating: 3
Both consoles will be using AMD based GPUs.


RE: So now...
By zephyrprime on 2/4/2013 1:05:11 PM , Rating: 2
The nex gen consoles don't look too powerful so I don't think we'll see any fancy AA from them. Most likely post-processing AA. Maybe MSAA sometimes.


RE: So now...
By ktemple on 2/4/2013 1:08:13 PM , Rating: 2
This would be an absurd mistake to make in 2013. I'm just a college dropout and even I know better than to make that mistake. MSAA isn't even that good really, and now it's old enough to where it's more or less time to move on (or at least move up). I'd bet a lot of money against you on this.


RE: So now...
By NellyFromMA on 2/4/2013 3:17:06 PM , Rating: 2
Explain how this is different than any other market at all?


RE: So now...
By talikarni on 2/4/2013 5:29:44 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
So now... does this mean that MS will rush to promote the next Xbox before FEB 20?


We all know this is what caused MS to rush the 360... and the resulting mass RRoD hysteria that still plagues most 360s to this day...
Oh wait MS said that was a feature to force people to take a break from their gaming. Pesky Sony people letting their players continue to game on....


AMD FTW?
By Wererat on 2/1/2013 8:37:24 AM , Rating: 3
So ... the Wii U uses an AMD GPU and both the next-gen Xbox and Playstation will use AMD... and analysts are *downgrading* AMD's bond rating?

I know the margin is small on these, but seriously, this is guaranteed revenue for years for chips that rapidly become trivial to produce.




RE: AMD FTW?
By FITCamaro on 2/1/2013 12:27:52 PM , Rating: 2
Again. If AMD merely designed the silicon but Microsoft and Sony own the finished product and merely have to source a manufacturer, AMD makes nothing beyond the contracting fee to design it.

I'm not sure what the relationship is between AMD and Nintendo around the Wii U.


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By NicholeGibbs22 on 2/6/2013 4:46:32 PM , Rating: 2
If you think Lisa`s story is neat..., in the last-month my cousinns step-daad also got a cheque for $5394 workin a fourteen hour week at home and the're classmate's step-sister`s neighbour was doing this for eight months and brought home over $5394 part time on their pc. follow the instructions at this site, Fox76.comCHECK IT OUT




!!!!!!
By GloriaHiggs22 on 2/2/13, Rating: 0
!
By TinaHiggs22 on 2/3/13, Rating: 0
!!!!!!!!!!!!
By BettyGibbs22 on 2/3/13, Rating: 0
hmm
By GulWestfale on 1/31/13, Rating: -1
RE: hmm
By txDrum on 1/31/2013 10:37:46 PM , Rating: 2
I generally only game on the PC. If I'm not mistaken, the new xbox is also meh hardware, but also keep in mind that for 300 or 400$ this should be a very good deal. Personally I'll stick with the PC, and I think sony could have done much better with a trinity APU, but hopefully this should do well for them.


RE: hmm
By maugrimtr on 2/1/2013 8:40:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
but i think it will take the PC less time to catch up to console graphics than when the PS3 launched. the easy porting between the two platforms will mean that PC users will get an equal graphics experience right from the start, and then in two years the PS4 will be left in the dust...


The hardware in both new consoles is very dated. Dated enough that many PCs of the past 3 years already surpass their specs. Any 2 year old PC long since demolished those specs.

I'll be waiting for the pricing. Consoles mysteriously buy ancient hardware at a premium and sell units at a loss for remarkable money. I've no idea how Sony and Microsoft pull this off. Maybe they should hire Lenovo or some other competent hardware designer.


RE: hmm
By ktemple on 2/1/2013 9:01:15 AM , Rating: 2
1) We don't actually know what hardware is in these machines. Nothing has been confirmed by anyone.

2) The rumors are all that something is "this-based" or "that-based," and provide no information (read: speculation) on custom features, the most important part of every console.

3) Even the strongest rumors seem silly, e.g. http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/29301_large_dur... -- The next Xbox only being 1.6 GHz is illogical, no matter how many cores there are, given where CPU tech currently is overall. They're not making an ultramobile. They're going to want to do 2 GHz MINIMUM, probably more like 2.6 - 3.6.


RE: hmm
By FITCamaro on 2/1/2013 12:29:35 PM , Rating: 2
Even with older, less powerful hardware, being able to perfectly optimize to a platform and a set of hardware is good for at least a 20-30% boost in performance vs that hardware in a Windows or Linux based PC.


RE: hmm
By MindParadox on 2/1/2013 2:15:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
by FITCamaro on February 1, 2013 at 12:29 PM Even with older, less powerful hardware, being able to perfectly optimize to a platform and a set of hardware is good for at least a 20-30% boost in performance vs that hardware in a Windows or Linux based PC.


Exactly this! It is INSANELY easier to optimize your coding when you know that you have exactly one set of hardware to code for than if you have multiple possibilities that have to be taken into account.

A console could honestly be running 5 year old hardware and still be able to easily compete with computer gaming simply for that reason alone


RE: hmm
By ktemple on 2/1/2013 2:27:33 PM , Rating: 2
This is only true if your platform isn't plagued by bottlenecks and short-sighted design. This is also assuming you're not comparing yourself to the PC high end. Dollar-for-dollar, you're right, the console will win 99.99% of the time.


RE: hmm
By SPOOFE on 2/1/2013 4:08:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is also assuming you're not comparing yourself to the PC high end.

Meh, but PC "high end" is absolutely ridiculous. I don't expect them to even consider trying to beat a quad-SLI setup.


RE: hmm
By Silver2k7 on 2/3/2013 4:03:50 AM , Rating: 2
The new Geforce Titan is out in one month or so.

But its also got a MSRP of $899 each.
of course you could in theory get 4 of them.. but my totaly unscientific guess is that maybe 1 in 10.000 gamers get such a setup ^^


RE: hmm
By Silver2k7 on 2/3/2013 4:10:25 AM , Rating: 2
the point is PC have always been faster than consoles always will be..

Thought I kind of wish there would be arcade game cabinetts with 2-4 top-end video cards and possibly a raytracing card (Caustic Series2 R2500 16GB) a 32" 4K monitor and some very flash games.


RE: hmm
By TakinYourPoints on 1/31/2013 11:17:30 PM , Rating: 2
Based on an article I read it will use x86 but like the PS2 and PS3, it will also allow for lower level control of hardware. Like those older machines, it will mean more difficulty in development but a higher performance/quality ceiling in the long run. I'll post the link if I can find it.

This will also make cross-platform porting less easy then it would first seem. And as per usual, making direct comparisons with PCs still doesn't make sense since there is far more optimization and less overhead with consoles.

A 1999 PC wouldn't be able to pump out the visuals of a 2007 PS2 game like God Of War 2, you know?


RE: hmm
By Philippine Mango on 1/31/2013 11:37:01 PM , Rating: 2
theoretically COULD, it's just that developers don't write their games that way... fyi HL2 works on an nvidia TNT2, pentium III 600,mhz with the right directx setting...


RE: hmm
By silverblue on 2/1/2013 2:59:08 AM , Rating: 2
I'm a little concerned about the use of a Llano-based CPU. It'll lack most modern ISAs and in most situations, the equivalent Trinity will beat it on the CPU side (without saying anything about the GPU). I'm interested in knowing what "custom" entails.

Still, if AMD had lots of Llanos sitting still doing nothing... :P


RE: hmm
By MGSsancho on 2/1/2013 6:01:39 AM , Rating: 2
Why would it lack the modern ISAs? I think you mean it would no include all of the older stuff like x87, 3dnow,maybe some the 128b and 256b functions and maybe the branch prediction engines. It will be a cpu with stripped out legacy bloat. They chose the fusion architecture since it is the most recent and more efficient architecture AMD has shipping. Since consoles are usually already behind a tad then they ship, why make it even more outdated?

I get the feeling most of the details will be correct but the clock speeds might be higher. Maybe these consoles will turn a profit on day one this time. We shall see.


RE: hmm
By silverblue on 2/1/2013 7:02:54 AM , Rating: 2
I mean it lacks the newer stuff.


RE: hmm
By ktemple on 2/1/2013 9:06:40 AM , Rating: 2
It can have whatever ISAs they want it to have. They're not buying the CPU off the shelf, lol. It's a console -- it's going to have custom features.

Also, it won't be Llano-based. Promise. Llano is from two years ago, and provides no savings or efficiencies of any kind over its newer counterparts. The console isn't even out yet. Sony is stupid, but not THAT stupid.


RE: hmm
By retrospooty on 2/1/2013 7:24:22 AM , Rating: 2
"A 1999 PC wouldn't be able to pump out the visuals of a 2007 PS2 game like God Of War 2, you know?"

This is true, but 8 years is along time. A better comparison is that a 2006 PC would be able to pump out WAY better graphics than the PS3 released the same year. Low end GPU is the culprit. Hopefully that improves more than anything else. Textures on console games are seriously lacking, everything is so blurry.


RE: hmm
By B3an on 2/1/2013 10:15:57 AM , Rating: 2
"A better comparison is that a 2006 PC would be able to pump out WAY better graphics than the PS3 released the same year"

No it wouldn't. The consoles are highly optimized and have lower level access, they still have finer hardware control for some things than even the latest PC hardware (its slowly catching up though). You have more control over memory as well on consoles, you can just go in and change specific things more easily. Doing the same task on PC is often less efficient, although being as the PC hardware is faster it often cancels it out.

When the 360/PS3 come out they could easily match a high end PC graphically, even though PC hardware was technically more powerful.


RE: hmm
By ktemple on 2/1/2013 10:28:14 AM , Rating: 2
Funny story: The PC hardware wasn't more powerful. The consoles came out with stronger graphics than anything out at the time. It took time for PC GPUs to catch up, especially if you're talking about the mid-range.


RE: hmm
By dubldwn on 2/1/2013 11:56:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
When the 360/PS3 come out they could easily match a high end PC graphically, even though PC hardware was technically more powerful.

That was true when the 360 came out. The PS3 launched on almost the exact same day as the 8800GTX.


RE: hmm
By SlyNine on 2/2/2013 4:19:18 AM , Rating: 2
The PS3 was based on the 7800 series. The 8800GTX was far more powerful.


RE: hmm
By SlyNine on 2/2/2013 4:22:01 AM , Rating: 2
The 1900XT was also far more powerful than what the the 360 had under its hood, according to anandtech. The 48 unified shaders had about the same amount of power as a 800XT. They were not on the level of a 1800XT or 1900XT.

Just because the 1900XT had 48 unified shaders, and the 360 had the same amount does not mean they were the same GPU. Common misconception.


RE: hmm
By SlyNine on 2/2/2013 4:24:06 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry just to clearify; each individual shader for the 360 was on the level of a single shader on the 800XT.


RE: hmm
By dubldwn on 2/4/2013 11:55:34 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah. That's the point I was making.


RE: hmm
By retrospooty on 2/1/2013 12:04:22 PM , Rating: 2
"When the 360/PS3 come out they could easily match a high end PC graphically"

No, they couldnt. In some ways, especially physics, triangles and all that they were better... But they were dramatically lower quality with regards to textures and fill rate. Especially textures. Low res blurry horrible looking textures ruins the whole thing.


RE: hmm
By wallijonn on 2/1/2013 10:28:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
A better comparison is that a 2006 PC would be able to pump out WAY better graphics than the PS3 released the same year.


Please stop using the word "PC" when what you really mean is a 2006 mid to high end graphics card in a 2006 PC. I have a 2006 PC with on-board graphics that will probably not be able to play GOW (2005). (Vista was released in 2007, so you wouldn't need twice the memory of an XP machine.)

The big question is whether Sony can recapture market share. If the PS4 comes in at >$500 then few will buy it. If it doesn't have game backwards compatibility (and let's say that the XBox720 does) then no one will buy it. Yes, the BD player will probably be able to do 4K, but few will be able to initially afford a set. The PS3 can do deep colour but there's no TV that uses the technology.


RE: hmm
By retrospooty on 2/1/2013 10:37:48 AM , Rating: 2
"Please stop using the word "PC" when what you really mean is a 2006 mid to high end graphics card in a 2006 PC. "

OK, point taken, but we are talking about Gaming. If it was a 2006 gaming PC it wouldnt have had onboard graphics.

"The big question is whether Sony can recapture market share. If the PS4 comes in at >$500 then few will buy it. If it doesn't have game backwards compatibility (and let's say that the XBox720 does) then no one will buy it."

Agreed, I have a PS3 and I am already planning not to buy PS4. I will get an Xbox720 (or whatever name it releases as) unless the Sony has some very clear advantages. If both are relatively equal, I wont buy Sony period.


RE: hmm
By ktemple on 2/1/2013 10:52:56 AM , Rating: 2
Well, one clear advantage is PSN. People sleep on it, and yes it goes down far too often lol, but there really is no better offering out right now. Its competition is Nintendo whatever-the-hell, which is stupid, and XBL Silver, which does nothing at all.

If you want to pay every month, PSN+ v XBL Gold is another story, but PSN+'s argument there is stronger as well. XBL has a better perception, though. It's mainly because Xbox's interface has always been better, and also the dynamic of Xbox always packaging in a headset and having cross-game chat and PS3 never having cross-game chat (see: awful memory configuration) and never packaging anything.

For ME, if the hardware is comparable I'm going to lean toward Sony. The problem is, MS hardware has always been a lot smarter in the past.


RE: hmm
By retrospooty on 2/1/2013 11:08:04 AM , Rating: 2
I agree, and that was a big part of why I got a PS3 over Xbox 360... But I am seriously doubting that it will be free with the PS4. MS cleaned up with Xbox live gold. 10 million users @ $5 a month is $600 Million a year for. I don't think they will be giving it away free again.


RE: hmm
By ktemple on 2/1/2013 11:25:12 AM , Rating: 2
It would have the opposite effect if Sony addressed the perception problem. If they could fix these really simple things, the cost of XBL Gold would suddenly become a liability. Microsoft is probably going to really entrench themselves in it this time too, so Sony has a real single-point-of-failure Death-Star-thermal-exhaust weakness to destroy MS with.

Until last month Sony's interface was braindead. That's six years. They never had cross-game chat. Six years. No headset. Six years. The 360 also had The Promise of Halo, which is no longer what it used to be.

And the 360 controller is better.

Wow lol, on second thought I don't really trust Sony to out-think MS at all on this. They really are a bunch of dumb stupid idiots.


RE: hmm
By retrospooty on 2/1/2013 11:31:48 AM , Rating: 2
"Wow lol, on second thought I don't really trust Sony to out-think MS at all on this."

LOL... Ya, after thinking about that comment, its a toss up. Both MS and Sony have the potential to make serious idiotic decisions. Both have demonstrated that skill many many times over.


RE: hmm
By SPOOFE on 2/1/2013 4:14:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They really are a bunch of dumb stupid idiots.

After the PS3 came out, Sony's CEO was all over talking about the poor quality of the company's internal communication; the Marketing guys making hardware promises that the Hardware guys never heard about, things like that.


RE: hmm
By wallijonn on 2/1/2013 4:20:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
that was a big part of why I got a PS3 over Xbox 360...


Well, that an the XBox360 had a >50% failure rate. :D

But many of us are still anti-Sony: root kits, removing Linux capability, no backwards compatibility & having their Credit Card site hacked.


RE: hmm
By superflex on 2/1/2013 5:19:36 PM , Rating: 2
Sony blows. The RLOD/YLOD never got the same media attention as the RROD.
Both were fatal flaws based on improper cooling.
Cant wait to see the failure rates of the PS4 and XBOX 720.


RE: hmm
By ktemple on 2/1/2013 10:00:27 AM , Rating: 1
The architecture doesn't actually help that much with the support/costs thing. What helps the Xbox is that it uses DirectX and it has far fewer bottlenecks than the PS3. The PS3 has OpenGL which is great, but it has a really awful memory configuration. So did the previous two PlayStations. Sony seems hell-bent on doing terrible memory setups.

People think it was the Cell that made development hard for the PS3, but that was only really relevant for the first 10 - 15 months. Working around its bottlenecks is the true pain. All three PlayStations have had this same issue for slightly different reasons. MS is also better about dev support and that sort of thing.

MS has used the unified memory setup since the very first Xbox, and it's paid off handsomely. It's clearly the best configuration for consoles (and soon, PCs). Somehow, Sony refuses to get the memo. If they don't do it this time, you can consider them down for the count.


!!!!!!!!!!!
By KateHiggs22 on 2/1/13, Rating: -1
"This is from the DailyTech.com. It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki