Shiloa
Member
(05-13-2012, 11:04 PM)

Shiloa's Avatar
#51

Originally Posted by Brera: View Post
My understanding of the PS3 was that it would get 10 prime years as Sony's No 1 console. Otherwise they would be stating the obvious as both PS1 and 2 did/doing double digits.
They said product life cycle. A PLC is basically the time before a product dies, not the time it stays as the sole focus. Consoles generally follow the PLC curve really well, it's just a matter of the scale the axis are. Sony state that it is 10 years at least for the PS3. It's very likely to be true.

natedog4000
Member
(05-13-2012, 11:09 PM)

natedog4000's Avatar
#52

Originally Posted by ClovingSteam: View Post
My question is why would anyone want a decade console cycle? Technology changes too often to rely on such ancient technology for 10 years running. It's ridiculous.
not too ridiculous, games the first year of the 360 don't look near as good as the games today. It takes devs awhile to fully use everything the system has. That and the public wouldn't be down with buying a new system ever few years.
Shiloa
Member
(05-14-2012, 12:12 AM)

Shiloa's Avatar
#53

Originally Posted by ClovingSteam: View Post
My question is why would anyone want a decade console cycle? Technology changes too often to rely on such ancient technology for 10 years running. It's ridiculous.
The whole point of consoles is to simplify it for the masses. If you want to keep pace, go PC.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
(05-14-2012, 12:37 AM)

ClovingWestbrook's Avatar
#54

Originally Posted by Shiloa: View Post
The whole point of consoles is to simplify it for the masses. If you want to keep pace, go PC.
Um, no? Every single generation except this one has had an average of what, 5 year life span? It's been perfectly fine up until this generation when many people start complaining how what we have is 'good enough'. No, no its not good enough. The NES wasn't good enough or the SNES wouldn't have arrived. The SNES wasn't good enough or the N64 wouldn't have arrived. The N64 wasn't good enough, well, you get the point.

If you want to keep playing your ancient hardware year six after its release, nobody will stop you. But for many people that want new hardware, better hardware that offers more potential for developers to get the most out of, 10 years is about five years too long.
Joni
Member
(05-14-2012, 05:39 AM)

Joni's Avatar
#55

Originally Posted by ClovingSteam: View Post
Um, no? Every single generation except this one has had an average of what, 5 year life span?
The PS1 had a lifespan of 10 years, the PS2 is at eleven, the PSP is at 7, the Game Boy ran for 14 years, the DS is at 8, the NES was available for a whopping 20 years (10 in the US). There is a market for a bit underpowered consoles at cheap prices.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
(05-14-2012, 05:59 AM)

ClovingWestbrook's Avatar
#56

Originally Posted by Joni: View Post
The PS1 had a lifespan of 10 years, the PS2 is at eleven, the PSP is at 7, the Game Boy ran for 14 years, the DS is at 8, the NES was available for a whopping 20 years (10 in the US). There is a market for a bit underpowered consoles at cheap prices.
Yea, lifespan is different than time between new consoles. Let the PS3 last 25 years as long ad there are a PS4, PS5, PS6, and PS7 in thattime.