Support NeoGAF

[VictimOfGrief]

Man threads like these remind me of my primary school days where kids constantly fling shit at each other over Sega or Nintendo.

The irony of that comment was Sega was smart.


Either way, I'd be interested to see what Sony does in the coming years. It'll be more interesting to see what they do rather than Microsoft cocking up some of the Xbox features and updates.

 

[DiddyBop]

first of all,the ps2 is far from dead,just check the charts, games liek guitar hero,lego games,etc are still charting and the system still sells millions of unit a year. i just preordered a ps2 game on amazon today (eternal poison) so to me also the ps2 is far from dead.

and why do ppl keep thinking that a ten yr life cycle means that the ps4 will launch ten yrs from now? did the ps2 launch ten yrs after the psx? did the ps3 launch ten yrs after the ps2? thats just some flawed logic. the ps4 will launch when the other systems do.
the ps3 keeps picking up momentum worldwide and the price is still high,so thats a good sign, but i think that they will fall 2 yrs short of their ten yr life cycle. id love for them to go 10 but i dont see it happening. but no one can predict the future so it will be interesting to see how things play out.

 

[knitoe]

All this talk about 10 year plan, just wondering, does any GAFer still uses their PS2, Xbox or GC as their main console?

Spoiler

If you do, feel sad for you.

 

[Rolf NB]

All this talk about 10 year plan, just wondering, does any GAFer still uses their PS2, Xbox or GC as their main console?

Spoiler

If you do, feel sad for you.

You seem a confident inquirer!

 

[tehrik-e-insaaf]

the NES the SNES the PS1 each had ~10 year lifespans more or less because they had content continually coming out for them and were actively manufactured

PS2 is on its way to having a 10 year lifespan

That doesn't mean these systems are relevant to the state of technology or cutting-edge games or peoples' primary console for 10 years, just that they were supported by the hardware manufacturer and software publishers for ~10 years give or take a few

Even systems that don't "win" the console generation/cycle end up having long shelf lives - the Genesis and the Neo Geo are proof of that

That said, it's a bit silly to say the system is "future-proofed" - because you can't really "future-proof" a console like you can say a television or a camera - that's because future proofing is about ensuring more content can be played on it in the future - this doesn't really apply for consoles as there is an inevitable technology curve and cycle that fundamentally changes the amount of content you receive every 5 years as new consoles come onto the market

Further and MOST IMPORTANTLY, technology itself doesn't determine whether a console will continue to receive content, it's more about the userbase and support from software publishers, the Xbox was the technologically superior console (by most accounts) last generation, but no software company felt compelled to support it, same is true of the N64, into the future

The only "future proofing" you can do is in terms of graphics technology when the product is released or provide some functional angle that continues to make people use it

One can try to predict the technology curve, and try to make cost-effective technology additions for the console that will make it a graphically appealing product or more functionally relevant product well into the future by understanding what makes it appealing - for example, Sega did this with the Dreamcast through anti-aliasing and internet connectivity.

However, once again, "future-proofing" the Dreamcast had no correlation with its success and shelf life

On the subject of the PS3 - is Blu Ray one such feature? It's possible - when next-gen consoles are released with next-gen disc drives and companies are considering releasing versions of the game for the previous consoles, it's possible that because of Blu Ray they will release a version of the game on PS3 without having to worry about taking too many discs - this might influence some developers from not creating 360 versions

But once again, if there is demand on 360 for the game, there is no reason why they can't continue to support the 360 with slightly paired down versions of the same game or multi-disc games - so long as the userbase craves and is willing to pay for content (!)

Hence, the Blu Ray argument doesn't really do much to make the case for future-proofing PS3 in terms of securing content over and above the 360

That said, I like the PS3, I think it's a fine console just like the 360 - will it last for 10 years in the same way the NES/SNES/PS1 did? Well, it all depends on how the rest of this generation plays out. If Sony can not catch up to MSFT or carve out a solid niche and decides to beat them to release at the start of the next console cycle, then perhaps not

If the PS3 does well and establishes a significant userbase of people and third parties continue to remain excited about the console well into the future, then sure why not?

But even consoles that sold significantly well (N64, Gamecube, Xbox) did not have 10 year lifespans - that in no way made those consoles lack good games or imply they were poor systems, just didn't reach the level of critical mass for third party software publishers and others to continue supporting the system

So to end this loooooong post - stop bickering and arguing - go play your games while the systems are in their prime

 

[manzo]

Tha_con? Making shit posts? Inconceivable!

Hell I don't even see the point of arguing one way or the other because everybody knows whose proverbial knob I slob over so I might as well just join the crowd who knows that tha_con has no business in this forum.

Now that he and bluheim are with us again, we can expect lots of :lol worthy posts in these and sales age threads.

 

[tha_con]

*sigh*

I guess I should just post about how much Sony sucks, so you guy's will be my friends

 

[DCharlie]

I guess I should just post about how much Sony sucks, so you guy's will be my friends

:fugeeface

 

[squatingyeti]

*sigh*

I guess I should just post about how much Sony sucks, so you guy's will be my friends

Oh, play the victim now. You were never interested in discussion, merely shitting up the thread and throwing insults. How persecuted you are.

The end of this thread is simple: Sony plans to have a 10yr cycle for the PS3, great! They want it to have a long life. As long as the consumers agree with them, then it will work out. However, if consumers are not interested, then it does not matter what Sony wants or plans.

This statement is all that's been said and it's merely asking you to accept that Sony does not dictate to consumers what they will do. Since they don't dictate, then saying they will have a 10year cycle is just a plan, consumers will decide the reality (NOTE for idiots like tha_con, I did NOT just say the 10yr cycle couldn't happen).

VERY SIMPLE, no need for tha_con to cry and scream of persecution because only a true "system warrior" sees that statement as "trolling" Sony. That's exactly what you've done, run around this thread screaming like a little child that was told Santa doesn't exist despite no one ever saying that.

 

[Private Hoffman]

Oh, play the victim now. You were never interested in discussion, merely shitting up the thread and throwing insults. How persecuted you are.

The end of this thread is simple: Sony plans to have a 10yr cycle for the PS3, great! They want it to have a long life. As long as the consumers agree with them, then it will work out. However, if consumers are not interested, then it does not matter what Sony wants or plans.

This statement is all that's been said and it's merely asking you to accept that Sony does not dictate to consumers what they will do. Since they don't dictate, then saying they will have a 10year cycle is just a plan, consumers will decide the reality (NOTE for idiots like tha_con, I did NOT just say the 10yr cycle couldn't happen).

VERY SIMPLE, no need for tha_con to cry and scream of persecution because only a true "system warrior" sees that statement as "trolling" Sony. That's exactly what you've done, run around this thread screaming like a little child that was told Santa doesn't exist despite no one ever saying that.

It's not as black and white as you paint the issue; consumer acceptance is influenced by corporate direction. If Sony supports the Playstation 3 and PSN with software, consumers are more likely to embrace the platform going forward.

 

[squatingyeti]

It's not as black and white as you paint the issue; consumer acceptance is influenced by corporate direction. If Sony supports the Playstation 3 and PSN with software, consumers are more likely to embrace the platform going forward.

That's right, but it doesn't mean they will. Nintendo could have kept pumping out games for the GCN, but the writing was on the wall. It's a very simple concept to grasp and a couple people are being ridiculous.

 

[Jokeropia]

There's an exception to that - Nintendo killed GBA after 3 years in a similar fashion Microsoft killed Xbox a year later. Even though GBA was massively succesful at that time.

Yeah like I said, successful systems generally have longer life lengths. GBA was a special case as a new competitor entered the market and Nintendo had to respond. Even so, the GBA lived on for quite a while after DS released.

Crazy thread lol

If anything, the ps3 will be like ps2 and ps1. It will have support for a few years after ps4 is out. Things could change or the plan can be scraped. But for now ill assume it end up like ps2.

PS1 and PS2 were the overwhelming market leaders. Things HAVE changed.

 

[Private Hoffman]

That's right, but it doesn't mean they will. Nintendo could have kept pumping out games for the GCN, but the writing was on the wall. It's a very simple concept to grasp and a couple people are being ridiculous.

PS3 is not in the same position as the GameCube, and even so, Nintendo could have stayed with the GameCube (some would argue that they did stay with it for the Wii), because they were profitable. Nintendo could continue to have made Software for the GC and it would have sold and they likely would have remained profitable. However, they found a new business model that worked better; release a repackaged GameCube with Waggle control and price it much higher (than the GameCube) due to the unique novelty of the unit and hope that consumers buy it since it's significantly less than the competition. Hey, it worked. It's still basically a GameCube, which makes supporting the GC now redundant.

If the PS3 is still doing PS2 numbers in 8 years (which is very likely if Sony continues supporting it since, at that time, it will be at a pretty low price), then there's no reason why they wouldn't. I don't see a new business model that Sony could use in order to magnify their success like Nintendo. Sony has been using this model for two generations now. It makes no sense to abandon support for the PS3 early on by releasing another highly priced piece of technology that won't sell early on. They're basically cutting into their long term investment of the PS3.

You're right, consumers could reject this philosophy, but that is very unlikely so long as the PS3 continues having great first and third party software support.

 

[legend166]

All this talk of "Sony mean 10 years in terms of how they will support the console with software and accessories!" is bullcrap. They're barely even supporting the PS2 now, after 8 years. First party releases are basically non-existant, as far as I can tell. The last one was God of War II, and there are no more major releases on the horizon.

The PS2 has lasted this long because of the massive amount of 3rd party support they've had. Why are they doing this? Because of the 120 million userbase. The PS3 won't have that luxury.

 

[Askia47]

Yeah like I said, successful systems generally have longer life lengths. GBA was a special case as a new competitor entered the market and Nintendo had to respond. Even so, the GBA lived on for quite a while after DS released.
PS1 and PS2 were the overwhelming market leaders. Things HAVE changed.

Its still possible. Never say never.

 

[Private Hoffman]

All this talk of "Sony mean 10 years in terms of how they will support the console with software and accessories!" is bullcrap. They're barely even supporting the PS2 now, after 8 years. First party releases are basically non-existant, as far as I can tell. The last one was God of War II, and there are no more major releases on the horizon.

The PS2 has lasted this long because of the massive amount of 3rd party support they've had. Why are they doing this? Because of the 120 million userbase. The PS3 won't have that luxury.

They're doing that because they're still selling third party software (mostly casual type software) and still pushing hardware, not because of the 120 million userbase (which doesn't necessarily paint an accurate picture of the current active userbase).

 

[Tormentoso]

All this talk of "Sony mean 10 years in terms of how they will support the console with software and accessories!" is bullcrap. They're barely even supporting the PS2 now, after 8 years. First party releases are basically non-existant, as far as I can tell. The last one was God of War II, and there are no more major releases on the horizon.

The PS2 has lasted this long because of the massive amount of 3rd party support they've had. Why are they doing this? Because of the 120 million userbase. The PS3 won't have that luxury.

http://ps2.ign.com/index/release.html


They have several games for the PS2 coming dude,not only that the PS2 doesn't have half the features the PS3 has.Sony stopped making PS wend? 10 years after the console was release,it would not surprise me to see the PS2 gives his last breath of life by the time a new MS console is here,the PS2 on march 2009 will be 9 years official,10 is something that will happen with the PS2,and it pretty much can happen with the PS3,from the sales point of view no it doesn't have 120 million units,but neither did the PS2 just 20 months after launch.

We have to see when the console get under $300 how good or bad the reception will be,since that is the price where most of the PS brand of consoles have been bought.

 

[FightyF]

I realize that it did take a while for the PSX and PS2 to "hit their potentials", and that at this stage of the PS3's life, it's faring well when you contrast it to its predecessors.

But it has to be mentioned how quickly the 360 and Wii were able to hit their potentials. From day 1 you had an incredible online gaming setup on the 360, and within a year you had some really, really good games, including new IPs that have become extremely popular and well known (ie. Gears of War). On the Wii you had a killer app out at launch, along with a 6 month flurry of AAA Nintendo titles based on top tier Nintendo franchises.

I think the PS3 will realize a lot of its potential this Fall, but Sony had to have realized that some of these titles should have been out long ago. WipeOut HD should have been in the planning stages during launch, and out last Winter. Socom should have been out at this point. Home should have been out last Fall (while I agree that they should do it right, rather than garnering bad first impressions, they should have worked on an answer to Live much earlier).

All the frequent firmware updates to the PS3 are testament to how much catchup they have to do. Potential is something we'll see realized when they're finally done catching up.

I would agree that besides those things, the PS3 is indeed future proof. Seems very open to HDD upgrades, BluRay will obviously be the de facto for the next 10 years at least, the list goes on and on and I'm sure we're all familiar with this stuff.

But in regards to hitting potential...you're gonna have to do it soon...mainly because the competition has.

 

[squatingyeti]

PS3 is not in the same position as the GameCube, and even so, Nintendo could have stayed with the GameCube (some would argue that they did stay with it for the Wii), because they were profitable. Nintendo could continue to have made Software for the GC and it would have sold and they likely would have remained profitable. However, they found a new business model that worked better; release a repackaged GameCube with Waggle control and price it much higher (than the GameCube) due to the unique novelty of the unit and hope that consumers buy it since it's significantly less than the competition. Hey, it worked. It's still basically a GameCube, which makes supporting the GC now redundant.

If the PS3 is still doing PS2 numbers in 8 years (which is very likely if Sony continues supporting it since, at that time, it will be at a pretty low price), then there's no reason why they wouldn't. I don't see a new business model that Sony could use in order to magnify their success like Nintendo. Sony has been using this model for two generations now. It makes no sense to abandon support for the PS3 early on by releasing another highly priced piece of technology that won't sell early on. They're basically cutting into their long term investment of the PS3.

You're right, consumers could reject this philosophy, but that is very unlikely so long as the PS3 continues having great first and third party software support.

Fine, then throw the gamecube out and use the N64 for comparison. Jesus, you guys are nit picking just to avoid the reality that CONSUMERS DECIDE! NOWHERE have I said the PS3 certainly will not have a 10yr cycle. I HAVE said it's up to consumers. Sony can do all it wants to support the system, but if consumers choose not to support Sony, it doesn't matter and the system will end its cycle.

Would you agree that if consumers turn their back on the system (ANY system) support from third parties would dry up? Would you also agree system sales would plummet to statistical noise? Would you further agree that this would force first party support to refocus, thus ending the cycle?

Since consumers turning their back WOULD cause 3rd party support to dry up, sales to plummet to statistical noise, and finally, a refocus of first party, ending the cycle; we can see how a company can plan all they want and commit, but the consumers still decide.

Sony, MS, or Nintendo can plan to have 10 year cycles, they can deliver great games, but they can still be ignored. There are MANY products out there where X is better than Y, is being supported and the makers of X are committed to a healthy lifespan of X. However, the people choose Y despite the efforts of the company making X, thus ending the lifespan of X before the company planned.

Maybe it's easier for some of you to understand when we remove company names from this VERY logical and simple concept.

 

[[Nintex]]

PS3 is not in the same position as the GameCube, and even so, Nintendo could have stayed with the GameCube (some would argue that they did stay with it for the Wii), because they were profitable. Nintendo could continue to have made Software for the GC and it would have sold and they likely would have remained profitable. However, they found a new business model that worked better; release a repackaged GameCube with Waggle control and price it much higher (than the GameCube) due to the unique novelty of the unit and hope that consumers buy it since it's significantly less than the competition. Hey, it worked. It's still basically a GameCube, which makes supporting the GC now redundant.

Nintendo turned their backs away from the GameCube. Wii is everything GameCube wasn't, why do you think N-fans cried last E3?

If the PS3 is still doing PS2 numbers in 8 years (which is very likely if Sony continues supporting it since, at that time, it will be at a pretty low price), then there's no reason why they wouldn't. I don't see a new business model that Sony could use in order to magnify their success like Nintendo. Sony has been using this model for two generations now. It makes no sense to abandon support for the PS3 early on by releasing another highly priced piece of technology that won't sell early on. They're basically cutting into their long term investment of the PS3.

Didn't Sony remove BC from the PS3 to try and increase PS3 software sales? They're happy with the healthy PS2 market, but face reality, they want to sell PS3, not PS2. Once the new systems roll in Sony has no choice but to join in. Microsoft's early launch was flawed, but still it worked for Genesis(untill SEGA screwed up) and Playstation 2. And one of the big three is going to try and take the market by storm(again...). Once the new consoles are there the least succesfull systems will end up on the chopping block.

You're right, consumers could reject this philosophy, but that is very unlikely so long as the PS3 continues having great first and third party software support.

The third parties are even more disrupted on the software side. Multiplatform games are the rule not the exception. People won't buy the Xbox 360 or PS3 for Guitar Hero when they can play it on Wii. Nintendo's third party support might be weak, but they made sure they got the "big fish". Call of Duty, Guitar Hero, Rockband, licensed movie-games, all of these appear on all three systems and can't be seen as system sellers for a single console. The same happened with GTA, both Xbox and PS3 got a piece of the pie. PS3 will never have the software advantage that the PS2 had over the competition. So even during this long-term plan they have to go up against Nintendo and Microsoft. If Nintendo drops the Wii price to $99 when their new system hits than Sony and MS can't cover the budget market.

People don't buy "potential" they want games right now. It's also impossible to market products that they don't have yet. Sony made some stupid decisions early on and those will continue to bite them in the ass till this generation is over. Just like MS is still having trouble with the RROD and Nintendo needs to adress their lack of storage. Other examples are the GD-Roms instead of DVD's which let to piracy on the Dreamcast and the N64 cartridges.

 

[TheHeretic]

We have to see when the console get under $300 how good or bad the reception will be,since that is the price where most of the PS brand of consoles have been bought.

Both the PSX and PS2 launched at $300, so its pretty fair to say ALL the PS brand consoles outside of the PS3 sold at under $300 by default.

 

[sonicmj1]

I have no doubt that Sony is sincere when it says it aims for a 10-year cycle for the PS3, at least in the sense that the PS1 and PS2 had/have a similar cycle. They'll try to continue to support it, even to a limited degree, as long as possible. We'll see how well that works.

But I think it's important to point out that, partially because the PS3 isn't the runaway market leader its predecessors were, and partially because its competitors are on the path to profitability and continued sales this time around, we could see all the current generation consoles attempt a similarly long cycle. In fact, I wouldn't be shocked if Nintendo went for the '10-year cycle' in nearly the strictest sense, not releasing a successor to the Wii until at least 2013.

I don't know if such a course is actually viable, so I'm just throwing this theory out there, but it could do interesting things to the sales of the consoles in this cycle going forward.

 

[solid2snake]

*sigh*

I guess I should just post about how much Sony sucks, so you guy's will be my friends

wow, you need a tag buddy.

 

[travisbickle]

All this talk of "Sony mean 10 years in terms of how they will support the console with software and accessories!" is bullcrap. They're barely even supporting the PS2 now, after 8 years. First party releases are basically non-existant, as far as I can tell. The last one was God of War II, and there are no more major releases on the horizon.

The PS2 has lasted this long because of the massive amount of 3rd party support they've had. Why are they doing this? Because of the 120 million userbase. The PS3 won't have that luxury.

Aren't Sony actually producing the console? Didn't they make another revision to the PS2slim to remove the external power brick, making it cheaper to manufacture and potentially cheaper to sell to get more buyers, isn't it selling a lot?.

If that's not supporting a console, I don't know what is?


My theory is the behind the scenes business deals that Microsoft do will kick them in the arse as the userbase for PS3 grows. We know about the extra costs for multiple discs, and the handcuffing of games released on XBLA, I think there are other deals and rulings that developers do for Microsoft now because of profit on the console, that they won't be too happy to do when they can make more money on the PS3.

 

[Private Hoffman]

Fine, then throw the gamecube out and use the N64 for comparison. Jesus, you guys are nit picking just to avoid the reality that CONSUMERS DECIDE! NOWHERE have I said the PS3 certainly will not have a 10yr cycle. I HAVE said it's up to consumers. Sony can do all it wants to support the system, but if consumers choose not to support Sony, it doesn't matter and the system will end its cycle.

Would you agree that if consumers turn their back on the system (ANY system) support from third parties would dry up? Would you also agree system sales would plummet to statistical noise? Would you further agree that this would force first party support to refocus, thus ending the cycle?

Since consumers turning their back WOULD cause 3rd party support to dry up, sales to plummet to statistical noise, and finally, a refocus of first party, ending the cycle; we can see how a company can plan all they want and commit, but the consumers still decide.

Sony, MS, or Nintendo can plan to have 10 year cycles, they can deliver great games, but they can still be ignored. There are MANY products out there where X is better than Y, is being supported and the makers of X are committed to a healthy lifespan of X. However, the people choose Y despite the efforts of the company making X, thus ending the lifespan of X before the company planned.

Maybe it's easier for some of you to understand when we remove company names from this VERY logical and simple concept.

N64 example doesn't work. No model works because the PS3 was priced so absurdly high at launch and still remains fairly high nearly two years later (400-500 pricepoint). It's essentially something that historically has never been done before with as much success as the PS3 has had. All other systems that were this costly were dead and had no chance of recovery. PS3 is already at 14 million units sold in two years; GameCube sold 21 million units in a much longer time at a MUCH lower cost.

I would agree that if consumers turned their back then support would dry up, and you ARE seeing a certain type of development dry up on the PS2; hardcore development. However, games that are relatively easy to port to other platforms and those that don't need amazing graphics in order to promote sales (Guitar Heros, Maddens, Lego Batman/Indiana Jones) still sell well on the PS2. If the PS3 gets down eventually to a $150 or lower pricepoint and the PS4 is released you will see the same shift of hardcore development moving on, yet the titles that sell to the casuals that buy at the lower pricepoint will still remain and console sales will still be strong. The PS2 market of today is VERY much different than the PS2 market a few years ago, and some lose sight of this fact, yet the PS2 is still able to remain strong.

So while yes, the hardcore gamer (you and I) are ignoring the PS2, we don't represent the market that buys the PS2 today.

Nintendo turned their backs away from the GameCube. Wii is everything GameCube wasn't, why do you think N-fans cried last E3?

Didn't Sony remove BC from the PS3 to try and increase PS3 software sales? They're happy with the healthy PS2 market, but face reality, they want to sell PS3, not PS2. Once the new systems roll in Sony has no choice but to join in. Microsoft's early launch was flawed, but still it worked for Genesis(untill SEGA screwed up) and Playstation 2. And one of the big three is going to try and take the market by storm(again...). Once the new consoles are there the least succesfull systems will end up on the chopping block.

The third parties are even more disrupted on the software side. Multiplatform games are the rule not the exception. People won't buy the Xbox 360 or PS3 for Guitar Hero when they can play it on Wii. Nintendo's third party support might be weak, but they made sure they got the "big fish". Call of Duty, Guitar Hero, Rockband, licensed movie-games, all of these appear on all three systems and can't be seen as system sellers for a single console. The same happened with GTA, both Xbox and PS3 got a piece of the pie. PS3 will never have the software advantage that the PS2 had over the competition. So even during this long-term plan they have to go up against Nintendo and Microsoft. If Nintendo drops the Wii price to $99 when their new system hits than Sony and MS can't cover the budget market.

People don't buy "potential" they want games right now. It's also impossible to market products that they don't have yet. Sony made some stupid decisions early on and those will continue to bite them in the ass till this generation is over. Just like MS is still having trouble with the RROD and Nintendo needs to adress their lack of storage. Other examples are the GD-Roms instead of DVD's which let to piracy on the Dreamcast and the N64 cartridges.

They removed BC in order to cut costs; not to increase PS3 software sales. Face reality? Reality says that the market of the PS2 is very different from that of the PS3 at the current stages in their respective lifecycles. Sony is making a profit on PS2/PSP sales, and very much wants to continue selling PS2s, which makes up for them losing money on the PS3.

I agree that people don't buy potential, they want results. That's why PS3 sales perked up when Blu-Ray stopped becoming potential and turned into reality, and it's also why you will see PS3 sales perk up more once price drops and a much better and diverse library hits the market.

I realize that it did take a while for the PSX and PS2 to "hit their potentials", and that at this stage of the PS3's life, it's faring well when you contrast it to its predecessors.

But it has to be mentioned how quickly the 360 and Wii were able to hit their potentials. From day 1 you had an incredible online gaming setup on the 360, and within a year you had some really, really good games, including new IPs that have become extremely popular and well known (ie. Gears of War). On the Wii you had a killer app out at launch, along with a 6 month flurry of AAA Nintendo titles based on top tier Nintendo franchises.

I think the PS3 will realize a lot of its potential this Fall, but Sony had to have realized that some of these titles should have been out long ago. WipeOut HD should have been in the planning stages during launch, and out last Winter. Socom should have been out at this point. Home should have been out last Fall (while I agree that they should do it right, rather than garnering bad first impressions, they should have worked on an answer to Live much earlier).

All the frequent firmware updates to the PS3 are testament to how much catchup they have to do. Potential is something we'll see realized when they're finally done catching up.

I would agree that besides those things, the PS3 is indeed future proof. Seems very open to HDD upgrades, BluRay will obviously be the de facto for the next 10 years at least, the list goes on and on and I'm sure we're all familiar with this stuff.

But in regards to hitting potential...you're gonna have to do it soon...mainly because the competition has.

I'm not suggesting that Sony did everything right. What they did do right, from my perspective at least, is get the hardware right. It's reliable, includes many standard features and a next-gen optical media format. What they didn't have right is the community features of the firmware and their 2007 lineup outside of a few titles was lacking. Luckily, those things can be resolved while hardware in many respects cannot be resolved.

I wouldn't say the 360 had a better lineup than the PS3 in its first year, though. In one year the PS3 still did have MotorStorm, Resistance, Uncharted, Ratchet and Clank, Assasin's Creed, and Call of Duty 4; a solid lineup for sure. However, Microsoft's second year in comparison with Sony's first year is what made things have a pretty stark contrast; Microsoft had a better lineup in 2007 due to Halo 3, BioShock, Mass Effect, Forza 2, and others being released. This year, things are a bit more even keel.

Unfortunately Sony's software plan was a bit inconsistent. Heavenly Sword and Lair were certainly not what Sony had wanted, and their progress in terms of HOME/Firmware updates has been very long in the making. It seems to me like they really didn't have much of an idea on how the PSN or HOME were going to materialize. Luckily, PSN is coming along nicely now, and hopefully when they release HOME it will be worth the wait. It appears as though the PS3 roadmap in terms of software and features really wasn't planned too well in advance...it was (and is) very much a work in progress. But, it's coming around definitely.

 

[Vinci]

So, out of curiosity (as I wasn't posting on GAF at the time) ... is tha_con similar to the Nintendo folks from last generation?

 

[Segata Sanshiro]

So, out of curiosity (as I wasn't posting on GAF at the time) ... is tha_con similar to the Nintendo folks from last generation?

Ehhhhn, he's more like one of the SEGA faithful. Nintendo fans are a bit more creepy.

 

[GameGamer]

*sigh*

I guess I should just post about how much Sony sucks, so you guy's will be my friends

WWSPD?

Spoiler

What Would Snake Plisskin Do?

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

Ehhhhn, he's more like one of the SEGA faithful. Nintendo fans are a bit more creepy.

Hey, you watch your mouth. Sega fans are at worst FAR more delusional.

 

[John_B]

Why would anyone even be rushing to the next generation? We just got past the upstart phase of developers whining about huge costs and complicated hardware, gamers whining about prices and shitty games that are unoptimized and lacks content.

 

[Jokeropia]

People who think that price is still the big issue for PS3, I'd like to point out that it's been the same price that PS2 launched (and sold gangbusters) at in Japan for a fair while now.

 

[Private Hoffman]

People who think that price is still the big issue for PS3, I'd like to point out that it's been the same price that PS2 launched (and sold gangbusters) at in Japan for a fair while now.

Japan is an entirely different beast.

 

[Jokeropia]

That might be the case, but it's still part of the worldwide market and will affect PS3's chances of staying relevant towards the end of the generation.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

Both the PSX and PS2 launched at $300, so its pretty fair to say ALL the PS brand consoles outside of the PS3 sold at under $300 by default.

Actually, both systems launched for $299.99 so they literally sold for under $300.

Japan is an entirely different beast.

Wait, does the 10 year plan not involve Japan? Does anyone feel that PS3 selling below 10k a week show it's got a healthy road to 10 years?

 

[Redd]

Japan is an entirely different beast.

Wait, what?

 

[Segata Sanshiro]

Hey, you watch your mouth. Sega fans are at worst FAR more delusional.

Delusional, yes, but aside from the DISOWNED furry Sonic contingent, far less creepy.

 

[Flakster99]

Hey, you watch your mouth. Sega fans are at worst FAR more delusional.

Yeah, ***-*** anybody?

Edit: Heh, how about that - O.p.a.

 

[Oblivion]

They're doing that because they're still selling third party software (mostly casual type software) and still pushing hardware, not because of the 120 million userbase (which doesn't necessarily paint an accurate picture of the current active userbase).

You can't be fuggin serious.

 

[squatingyeti]

You can't be fuggin serious.

I've given up trying to be logical with people that refuse to see reason. At least he's not throwing around the persecution shtick, or the "system wars" everyone is part of but me *insert troll*. Also known as, tha_con routine.

 

[AndyD]

All this talk about 10 year plan, just wondering, does any GAFer still uses their PS2, Xbox or GC as their main console?

Its not just about gaffers, but gamers in general.

For example, at home we have moved to new gen. My parents, my sister and the beach and lake houses (which the whole extended family share together) are all still in the PS2 age. So out of 5 PS2 households, we still have 4.

 

[Oblivion]

I've given up trying to be logical with people that refuse to see reason. At least he's not throwing around the persecution shtick, or the "system wars" everyone is part of but me *insert troll*. Also known as, tha_con routine.

Agreed. It's a shame these threads are as frustrating as they are entertaining.

 

[Opiate]

I don't agree with everything Private Hoffman is saying, but I do believe the "companies can influence consumer demand" portion is being too easily dismissed (just as I earlier insisted that historical data was being too easily dismissed).

A combination of strong advertising and continued first party support can certainly prolong a lifespan; again, the Gamecube began dying quickly, but it didn't have to die quite as quickly as it did; if Nintendo had continued to support the system with all of its major efforts, it would have lasted longer (even if the end was inevitable).

This really comes down to opportunity cost, which is another discussion entirely: Nintendo would have stayed profitable if they had kept the Gamecube on life support, but clearly they're even more profitable -- by some orders of magnitude -- because they abandoned it and started fresh.

I'm not arguing (yet) whether it's a good decision to keep a system alive or not; I'm just arguing that it's possible for a company to do so, even in the case of falling consumer demand. Although again, it's important to point out that the PS3 is not failing thus far: unlike the Gamecube, it's seen dramatically better sales in its second year compared to its first (~100% YoY in the US).

 

[tha_con]

Oh, play the victim now. You were never interested in discussion, merely shitting up the thread and throwing insults. How persecuted you are.

The end of this thread is simple: Sony plans to have a 10yr cycle for the PS3, great! They want it to have a long life. As long as the consumers agree with them, then it will work out. However, if consumers are not interested, then it does not matter what Sony wants or plans.

This statement is all that's been said and it's merely asking you to accept that Sony does not dictate to consumers what they will do. Since they don't dictate, then saying they will have a 10year cycle is just a plan, consumers will decide the reality (NOTE for idiots like tha_con, I did NOT just say the 10yr cycle couldn't happen).

VERY SIMPLE, no need for tha_con to cry and scream of persecution because only a true "system warrior" sees that statement as "trolling" Sony. That's exactly what you've done, run around this thread screaming like a little child that was told Santa doesn't exist despite no one ever saying that.

The problem with your statement is that you pretend as though consumers are a single entity. That they all function together on a whim, and at any given moment they will stop supporting the Playstation 3.

Unfortunately, that is not how it works. If consumers are supporting this $400 to $500 paperweight, then they will most certainly continue to support it 5 years down the line, when it's cheaper, and more games are available.

Your suggestion that Sony has no control over the PS3's lifespan is just as ridiculous as me accusing you of being a troll. Just think about it for a minute, without shitting on my post and talking with all your friends about how big of a fanboy I am.

If Sony continues to lower the price, improve the hardware, and add functionality and software (by this I mean bigger library and cheaper development kits) then what in the world makes you think consumers will suddenly stop supporting it?

I don't want to play the "name brand" card, but PlayStation does have somewhat of a following, and there will still be many consumers in years to come who will purchase one. Even folks who just own 360's right now, and swear by them, could eventually purchase a PS3 at affordable prices just to play those 'few games they missed'.

Do consumers have influence? Yes, Nintendo knows this better than anyone. However, Sony is not Nintendo. Last generation, Nintendo did very little to attract the 'core' gamer. In fact, they didn't even do a lot to attract the casual gamer, they were a special case. I'm talking strictly 1st party, btw.

Sony, however, has done a lot with their 1st party to snag on to many different demographics, with casual games, "hardcore" games, and those inbetween PSN titles. To think that their efforts will not help to influence consumer choice down the road (again, when the console has more games and is more affordable) is a bit ridiculous.

So, do what you will, but I see no reason for anyone to doubt the PS3 will be around for 10 years and still sell a decent amount of consoles (and still post a good amount of profit for Sony down the line).

 

[Grecco]

I \ influence? Yes, Nintendo knows this better than anyone. However, Sony is not Nintendo. Last generation, Nintendo did very little to attract the 'core' gamer. In fact, they didn't even do a lot to attract the casual gamer, they were a special case. I'm talking strictly 1st party, btw.

).

Were talking about the Gamecube right? Your saying Nintendo did "Very little to attract the core gamer" on the Gamecube.

 

[tha_con]

Were talking about the Gamecube right? Your saying Nintendo did "Very little to attract the core gamer" on the Gamecube.

Sorry, I didn't word that correctly. What I meant was, Nintendo didn't do much to go out and snag the gamers that are looking for shooters / sports / adventure that really 'hit home' with gamers and made them want that console (the Gamecube).

The Gamecube was a terrific system, loved my Metriod Prime titles, Double Dash was amazing, and the Mario sports titles were always a blast.

That said, none of that really hit home with the core gamer and made them feel like they needed a Gamecube, and the casual gamers were oddly just as confused. There was just a strange perception of the Gamecube. A wonderful console that absolutely deserved success (which financially, it was, profit is really all that matters).

This generation, however, Nintendo has snagged up so many different demographics, you can't begin to analyze the folks who purchase a Wii. We could say price, but even the super rich are buying them over 360's and PS3s. We could say games, but even the hardcore are buying it for Wii Sports and other casual games. We could say it's the Wii Mote, but a lot of folks will use the classic controller over the Wii mote if they can.

Who knows! But Sony is not the "Nintendo" of last generation, and Nintendo is a new kind of beast this generation.

 

[Revolver]

All this talk about 10 year plan, just wondering, does any GAFer still uses their PS2, Xbox or GC as their main console?

Spoiler

If you do, feel sad for you.

Right now the PS2 is my main console. Gamed on the 360 for a while, but that's another topic. Anyway, don't feel sad for me. I have a large backlog of games to go through and I even play some PS1 titles! Sure, a lot of the games are hard on the eyes, but they're still fun.

Purely anecdotal, but out of my family and friends, few have moved into the new gen yet. I know a couple of people with Wiis and one with a 360. But most are still clinging to their PS2s. Matter of fact, everyone I know besides the 360 owner are still gaming on an SDTV.

 

[tha_con]

Right now the PS2 is my main console. Gamed on the 360 for a while, but that's another topic. Anyway, don't feel sad for me. I have a large backlog of games to go through and I even play some PS1 titles! Sure, a lot of the games are hard on the eyes, but they're still fun.

Purely anecdotal, but out of my family and friends, few have moved into the new gen yet. I know a couple of people with Wiis and one with a 360. But most are still clinging to their PS2s. Matter of fact, everyone I know besides the 360 owner are still gaming on an SDTV.

You actually prove a great point, that GAF represents a very small portion of the overall gaming market. The fact that there are about 50 million people who are still gaming on PS2 says a lot (Note: I don't know the actual number, that's just a guess I pulled out of my ass, in case anyone feels they need to call me out).

 

[Private Hoffman]

That might be the case, but it's still part of the worldwide market and will affect PS3's chances of staying relevant towards the end of the generation.

Actually, both systems launched for $299.99 so they literally sold for under $300.



Wait, does the 10 year plan not involve Japan? Does anyone feel that PS3 selling below 10k a week show it's got a healthy road to 10 years?

The 10 year plan, I assume, does include Japan (I would imagine), though given Sony's western first party studios it stands to reason that they care significantly less about the Japanese market than Europe/America, and rightly so; Japan is only a very small piece of the overall videogame market.

Grabbing substantial share in two large markets while doing poorly in one small one will have to suffice if Sony cannot get out of their rut in that region.

Overall, though, pricing perhaps isn't as big of a concern as content in Japan, whereas the content that appeals to western audiences is strong, and thus you'll see pricing have more of an influence in these regions since it's still extremely high and selling very well at the same time.

You can't be fuggin serious.

Oh, I am 'fuggin' serious. I'm part of that 120 million, yet I don't game whatsoever on my PS2 anymore; I've moved on. However, I'm different than the people that are currently buying and playing PS2s in the sense that: 1) I'm a hardcore gamer 2) I can afford (or justify affording) highly priced consoles. 3) I don't buy recycled versions of casual games year in and year out that have little more than a roster change or updated track list. This is the majority of the software that is currently releasing on the PS2 right now that sells. Interestingly enough, this software is probably the cheapest to produce and justifies the marginal development costs since the process has been so refined over the years for the PS2 that it's become routine.

Some people still don't really "get" the 10 year lifecycle. No hardcore exclusive games are being developed for the PS2 anymore. But titles where it doesn't take that much of an investment to port a game, and where there is a receptive audience that is sensitive to pricing and more likely to buy casual titles, are certainly being developed.

The same transition will happen with the PS4, and I believe that Sony (not the consumers, at least directly; Sony will obviously analyze whether or not it makes more sense to develop games on a new platform or the old, like Opiate said it's an opportunity cost) will dictate when that happens because you will start seeing Sony's massive first party studios dropping support of their blockbuster 1st party "hardcore" titles on the PS3 and moving that development on the PS4, meanwhile the PS3 will continue to get support from an entirely different audience.

PS2 is the only console on the market right now that is priced very affordably (significantly so when weighed against the current consoles), which is a different active audience than is currently adopting and using HD consoles right now. The previous 120 million, in a sense, is a bit meaningless. It's all about active audiences, and they're quite different now than what they used to be.

I've given up trying to be logical with people that refuse to see reason. At least he's not throwing around the persecution shtick, or the "system wars" everyone is part of but me *insert troll*. Also known as, tha_con routine.

I suppose if I said Sony was doomed, there's no way that they can ever last 10 years, and a bunch of other anti-Sony rhetoric that would be more pleasing to your interests, but Sony has done this for two generations and I'll trust their business judgment (at least in the US and in Europe).

 

[Oblivion]

Oh, I am 'fuggin' serious. I'm part of that 120 million, yet I don't game whatsoever on my PS2 anymore; I've moved on.

And that was kinda my point. Most of these publishers that are still putting out games for PS2 are banking on the the rest of the 120 million people. This isn't some last ditch, quick cash in effort that they're hoping to take advantage of.

I suppose if I said Sony was doomed, there's no way that they can ever last 10 years, and a bunch of other anti-Sony rhetoric that would be more pleasing to your interests, but Sony has done this for two generations and I'll trust their business judgment (at least in the US and in Europe).

So much for not playing the victim card.

 

[travisbickle]

And that was kinda my point. Most of these publishers that are still putting out games for PS2 are banking on the the rest of the 120 million people. This isn't some last ditch, quick cash in effort that they're hoping to take advantage of.

They're not banking on 120million people, like was said it's not about the number it's ridiculous to think anywhere near that many play PS2. They're willing to still support PS2 by making games because Sony was able to sell an average of 15 million a year for the lifetime of the console. The last 15-20 million that have bought the console in the last few years are the ones buying the games developers make today.