Support NeoGAF

[h3ro]

So you do think the PS4 will be out in 4 years?

I think it'll follow the same route as the PS2/PS3 transition, perhaps with a slightly more abrupt end to the cycle to avoid the current overlap going on or at least limit the overlap to some extent. I don't see them complete shutting down the PS3 as MS did with the original Xbox, but I definitely think they won't want to be constantly losing potential sales to the older hardware.

 

[Segata Sanshiro]

Sony had the right strategy for me as a gamer. This is the best Sony platform/console I've ever owned in terms of hardware. I was a bit disappointed with what they presented with the Playstation 2, even though it did have DVD playback which was a huge plus. The networking of the PS2 was terrible, there was no standard hard drive, and used an archaic proprietary memory card instead of an open standard like USB. In many ways I've felt that Microsoft has regressed from the Xbox 1 (no standard hard drive, nickle and dime for features that should be open) and Sony has progressed. Interesting role reversals for this gen.

I think Sony sent the right message by including a standard hard drive (which you can upgrade yourself), wifi, free online, and blu-ray with the system. This basically allows developers to have less handcuffs in terms of releases they want to include at retail and on the Playstation Network. It gives the entire platform a very long life. Sony probably understands now that while graphics are important to a certain degree, they're getting to the point where artistic design is the main challenge and not technical hurdles that plagued 3D games in the past on the PS2/PS1. So, I'm happy that the PS3 will have a long life...I want the PS4 to represent a large leap in power rather than a minor one. Diminishing returns is something to worry about, as are development costs and time, which means a lengthy console cycle IS ABSOLUTELY required from here on out, IMHO.

I really hope that in the distant future when Sony releases the Playstation 4 that they carry over all of the features of the Playstation 3 in terms of the XMB, Playstation Network titles, etc, so that it's all fully backwards compatible...which means, the PS4 needs to have perfect backwards compatibility with the PS3. This is an even more important feature now (with the PSN network) than ever. Obviously, the PS4 should update some of the XMB and other features to a new next-gen standard, but it should retain all of the previous features.

While some systems follow a sales curve that instantly takes off and dies down over time, PS3 should have more of a bell curve distribution. Sales were low the first few years due to software library and the very high price, but as those get resolved during the middle part of hardware lifecycle you should see very high sales.

The PS2 was the best fucking system of all time and you will watch your filthy whore mouth when you speak of it.

 

[Private Hoffman]

The PS2 was the best fucking system of all time and you will watch your filthy whore mouth when you speak of it.

Strictly speaking in terms of hardware I felt that the Dreamcast did more for online gaming early on than the PS2, where it wasn't heavily pushed for a while and you needed an add on. Obviously the PS2's lineup was awesome.

 

[Orlics]

MikeB is that you?

he lives on through this arm

 

[TheHeretic]

Strictly speaking in terms of hardware I felt that the Dreamcast did more for online gaming early on than the PS2, where it wasn't heavily pushed for a while and you needed an add on. Obviously the PS2's lineup was awesome.

The dreamcast was ahead of its time, but the piracy problem was pretty bad.

 

[bluheim]

Is that really such a good thing?

Sony is having trouble converting PS2 users in to PS3 users. Growing the PS2 userbase does not necessarily present them withthe long term benefits that growing the PS1 userbase did, wayback when.

I'm pretty sure the price is the only thing that prevent the massive switch of the PS2 users. Sony knows it better than I do and I suppose they know what they are doing, but I would have already cut the price of the PS3 to 299$ : PS2 users are only waiting for this to jump in.

 

[Lion Heart]

why should i play PS3 in 2017 when i can have a Xbox 1080 with 5D and 2160p? think about it sony, THINK ABOUT IT.

Yup, we are all rich

 

[Shiggy]

I'm pretty sure the price is the only thing that prevent the massive switch of the PS2 users. Sony knows it better than I do and I suppose they know what they are doing, but I would have already cut the price of the PS3 to 299$ : PS2 users are only waiting for this to jump in.

So don't you think that many PS2 users (casual gamers) switched to Wii? At least in Germany the Wii can be considered as the new PS2 - the new main console.

 

[pr0cs]

I'm pretty sure the price is the only thing that prevent the massive switch of the PS2 users. Sony knows it better than I do and I suppose they know what they are doing, but I would have already cut the price of the PS3 to 299$ : PS2 users are only waiting for this to jump in.

I doubt at 299 they'll fare a lot better, a lot of the PS2 pool of users has jumped on the Wii-wagon, there is little Sony or Microsoft to stem that tide, including price.

 

[Darkman M]

The potential that results might be realized.

4D is coming just wait.

 

[carlosp]

We can argue a lot about what will be possible on xbox1080 or Wii HD or what ever. But those are only speculations. If i look at uncharted as a first gen PS3 title and compare it with God of War 2 as a third gen PS2 title I am pretty sure sony will blow me away in 8 years with the PS3 like they blew me away with God Of War (2).

 

[Forsete]

If the PS4 comes out in under 10 years how has the PS3 had a 10 year lifespan?

Uh, like the PSX and PS2? A system can survive without being the primary.

 

[travisbickle]

We'll see if it lasts 10 years, I think it has a good chance with its online distribution. Developers could be making games to be distributed on PSN for a long time if they hook PS3 owners onto the idea. As for becoming market leader in the next few years, Sony would have to pump out best-in-the-genre games every year: LBP, Killzone and Gran Turismo could be the start.

 

[manzo]

Uh, like the PSX and PS2? A system can survive without being the primary.

Yep. Just look at the Neo-Geo!

 

[felipeko]

I always thought 10 years plan was about supporting the system for 10 years, and by supporting i mean producing games, not hardware, because you know, Nintendo still sells GamCubes.

I think PS1 had a 10 years lifecycle, PS2 will have too, but not because of Sony. Sony dried their support for both plataform as soon as they released the sucessor. That worked well for them, because they had sold more than 100 million of each, and most of companies can profit from that for years (10 years..). But for PS3 i don't think it will be the case, and has nothing to do with Sony wanting or not, it's the market decision.

 

[solid2snake]

he lives on through this arm

 

[Duke Togo]

The PS2 was the best fucking system of all time and you will watch your filthy whore mouth when you speak of it.

:lol

 

[tha_con]

You really thinking quoting "lol" smilies is any sort of argument.

youlosegooddaysir.gif

Yes, "I really thinking" that. English please.

It's amusing, Sony supported the PS1 for a decade, producing memory cards, controllers, games, as well as customer support. Ten Year Lifespan.

Sony is *still* selling 200K PS2's a month, it's almost ten years old. They still make games, controllers, memory cards, accessories, and provide customer support. Ten Year Lifespan.

YOU don't understand what Sony is saying by "Ten Year Lifespan". You've made this crazy assumption that somehow it's just Bullshit PR from Sony, and that I've stumbled upon some great idea that Sony isn't aware of, even though they've done it the last two generations.

I don't know *when* the PS4 will hit, but I do know that Sony will continue to support the PS3. It's not going to be a Gamecube or Xbox, getting the proverbial "fuck yourself" from it's parent company the day their new hardware comes out.

I always thought 10 years plan was about supporting the system for 10 years, and by supporting i mean producing games, not hardware, because you know, Nintendo still sells GamCubes.

I think PS1 had a 10 years lifecycle, PS2 will have too, but not because of Sony. Sony dried their support for both plataform as soon as they released the sucessor. That worked well for them, because they had sold more than 100 million of each, and most of companies can profit from that for years (10 years..). But for PS3 i don't think it will be the case, and has nothing to do with Sony wanting or not, it's the market decision.

Sony continued to support the PS1 and PS2 with some 1st party software and accessories well after it's time. They didn't "dry" their support as soon as they released the successor. Sure, they might not push it *as* hard, but they sure as shit didn't just stop supporting it.

 

[Kill Your Masters]

Neither the PS1 or PS2 were relevant for a decade.

Steinberg never said that PS3 will be, just that it will live for 10 years.

 

[solid2snake]

Steinberg never said that PS3 will be, just that it will live for 10 years.

you mean brain dead for 10 years like the gamecube...

 

[oldergamer]

The only console that is future proof is the console that wins the war. None of these consoles are future proof as shown by Sony being deep in development with PS4 ( confirmed by Mr Harrison in his reasons for leaving. ). MS is also in development as it Nintendo.

 

[Shiggy]

Sony continued to support the PS1 and PS2 with some 1st party software and accessories well after it's time. They didn't "dry" their support as soon as they released the successor. Sure, they might not push it *as* hard, but they sure as shit didn't just stop supporting it.

You know why? Because they could make money since the PS2 was market leader and still a very successful console. Something that neither the Xbox nor the GCN were.

 

[ChackanKun]

Good policy from Sony

 

[Forsete]

you mean brain dead for 10 years like the gamecube...

No. Jesus is it that hard to understand? Look at PSX and PS2, that is what they are saying. Those systems were hardly brain dead.

 

[Wollan]

Sony being deep in development with PS4 ( confirmed by Mr Harrison in his reasons for leaving. ).

Link to this?

 

[TheHeretic]

No. Jesus is it that hard to understand? Look at PSX and PS2, that is what they are saying. Those systems were hardly brain dead.

Yeah because the PS3 is tracking sales right up there with those two consoles.

 

[Fenderputty]

This topic can only go in one direction.

Really ...

I thought something being flushed down the toilet spins in the opposite direction depending on which hemisphere you live.

 

[Zombie James]

If the PS4 comes out in under 10 years how has the PS3 had a 10 year lifespan?

I love how people still think that "10-year lifespan" means we won't get a PS4 until 2017 :lol

 

[Forsete]

Yeah because the PS3 is tracking sales right up there with those two consoles.

HUR HUR HUR!

PS3 is doing fine, its racking up the sales. Sony will continue to support it, when they do publishers dont want to miss out on a XX million fanbase, even if the PS4 is out by then.

I love how people still think that "10-year lifespan" means we won't get a PS4 until 2017 :lol

Yeah, some people are just :lol :lol :lol .

 

[Kinitari]

The only console that is future proof is the console that wins the war. None of these consoles are future proof as shown by Sony being deep in development with PS4 ( confirmed by Mr Harrison in his reasons for leaving. ). MS is also in development as it Nintendo.

Comparing this generation to the last one is silly, or any ones before it. The sales numbers are not matching up with last gen's, and we have completely different kinds of consoles, with probably completely different life cycles - like the Wii for example, I think will probably be 'replaced' by the 'Wii 2' in a much shorter time frame than the Ps2 was with the Ps3.

Stop using previous generations as a road map, history doesn't work that way.

 

[Xisiqomelir]

If you want a PS3 that cheap, you better hope that both companies stay in the game.

Healthy competition is what drops prices.

I think Nintendo is doing a fine job of forcing that through on it's own.

The PS2 was the best fucking system of all time and you will watch your filthy whore mouth when you speak of it.

This is questionable at best. Solely from a personal viewpoint, last-gen as a PS2-only owner was the absolute nadir of my gaming experience.

 

[Kill Your Masters]

Link to this?

Is a link even necessary? I think all three (MS, N, Sony) are at least having concepts for the next console, maybe even more.

 

[duk]

This isn't PS2. Sony can't dictate the course of the PS3 as they did with the PS2 anymore. Things have changed too much for that. Right now, Sony needs to be flexible and agile not rigid.

 

[theBishop]

Mostly, I'm just glad online multiplayer is free.

 

[TheKingsCrown]

Haven't we already learned that's definitely NOT true?

What I'm saying is that as soon as it becomes evident that Sony is trying for some long duration strategy, new things will have been developed by competitors that will hit the market. You can't look at Sony in a vacuum. Nintendo already derailed the industry, and Microsoft refuses to give in no matter how much it costs (and with their latest iteration they will likely match or beat Sony's PS3, or come very close. Any new introduction of a product will be followed in the future by a response, and given that their competitors have already derailed them once, what makes you believe they aren't creating competing tech already to derail again?

Let's see how they fare before we judge. Whatever rebranding they will be attempting is yet to happen.
I'm guessing it's something they're planning now with a Slim and the rumored break-a-part controller, probably for next fall.

Nintendo has been developing its next console since the Wii came out. Let's assume Sony's PS4 has been derailed, since PS3 was (they clearly can't develop PS4 as a successor to PS3). Nintendo will be first to market with the next Wii, which will once again derail any "re-branding" that Sony does (See Dreamcast VS PS2 for a somewhat comparable example). Edit: Just to clarify, what I am saying is that even if Sony copies a motion sensitive tech, it has not built the brand that Nintendo has already exhausted (based on motion), and Nintendo is in the drivers seat for their next console...much as Sony was with the PS2 after PS1.

Sony's only move to make the PS3 a viable 10 year system is to derail the PS3 itself, re-brand and launch the next system alongside Wii2 IMO. And it can't be called Playstation 3, which means that Sony is launching a new console...not making the PS3 a 10 year system.

it worked for nintendo...

What worked for Nintendo, exactly? What exactly is Sony doing that also worked for Nintendo? :lol

 

[eve241]

No one likes "paying for potential". I need a system seller. I need Team Ico's game.

 

[oldergamer]

Link to this?

"http://www.videogaming247.com/2008...al-reason-for-harrisons-departure-from-sony/"

“He could see he was about to get involved in another PlayStation cycle, and obviously wanted something new,” we were told. “The same thing was happening again and he’d been through it enough times to want to move on.”

 

[Shiggy]

Edit: Reading is tough.

 

[Zombie James]

No one likes "paying for potential".

It's working out fine for me. The PS3 I have now is pretty significantly improved over the one I bought last October. I swear, with the PS3 and 360, firmware and system updates are the best things to happen to consoles this generation.

 

[PistolGrip]

The PS2 was the best fucking system of all time and you will watch your filthy whore mouth when you speak of it.

Yeah but the PS3 is leaps and bounds simply because the tech in it is outstanding. Its the best piece of electronics I have ever owned.

 

[felipeko]

Sony continued to support the PS1 and PS2 with some 1st party software and accessories well after it's time. They didn't "dry" their support as soon as they released the successor. Sure, they might not push it *as* hard, but they sure as shit didn't just stop supporting it.

I would like to know what would you think if Sony was the only support PS2 would have right now....

Comparing this generation to the last one is silly, or any ones before it. The sales numbers are not matching up with last gen's, and we have completely different kinds of consoles, with probably completely different life cycles - like the Wii for example, I think will probably be 'replaced' by the 'Wii 2' in a much shorter time frame than the Ps2 was with the Ps3.

Stop using previous generations as a road map, history doesn't work that way.

I don't think he is just using it as a road map, he is using it to justify his logic... You have anything to justify the bolded part?

 

[Bending_Unit_22]

No. Jesus is it that hard to understand? Look at PSX and PS2, that is what they are saying. Those systems were hardly brain dead.

What I don't get is why its so hard for some people to figure out why the PS1 and PS2 lasted for 10 years while the Saturn, N64, Dreamcast, Xbox, and Gamecube did not. Seeing as it is so difficult, I'll give you a hint, it's not because the PS1and PS2 were made by Sony and it's for a reason that is completely unapplicable to the PS3.

I'm not saying the PS3 won't still be supported in 10 years (virtually every system is) or that a trickle of games may not be coming out (aren't a couple Dreamcast games still made each year?) but the PS3 surviving as a viable gaming platform for most consumers and the industry for 10 years like the PS1 and PS2 did is out of the question at this point.

 

[BoilersFan23]

Strictly speaking in terms of hardware I felt that the Dreamcast did more for online gaming early on than the PS2, where it wasn't heavily pushed for a while and you needed an add on. Obviously the PS2's lineup was awesome.

I agree with you mostly (on your other post too). I was really into PS1 last gen, bought a PS2 at launch and was very disappointed (I also owned a Dreamcast). I felt it was barely much better than PS1 (graphics didn't look all that great early on, and it just kind of gave me a DVD player). Overall, the step from PS1 to PS2 felt very small. Since PS2 built up a big userbase, it started to get awesome support from developers and I started to really like it (I still never really liked the PS2 hardware). Regardless of the things people say about PS3, I was actually more impressed with it early on compared to PS2 (since it introduced several features compared to PS2, hardware was truly great IMHO, and it definitely felt like I was jumping to another generation).

Speaking of the 10 year plan, I believe it. I'm glad Sony tries to keep their platforms around for a while.

 

[tha_con]

I would like to know what would you think if Sony was the only support PS2 would have right now....

They would have fewer games, yes, but their continued support (the production and sale of consoles, accessories, and customer service) allow the console to sell 200K units a month, and 3rd parties can remain confident they can publish games on that system. Continued support. 10 year lifespan.

 

[szaromir]

Comparing this generation to the last one is silly, or any ones before it. The sales numbers are not matching up with last gen's, and we have completely different kinds of consoles, with probably completely different life cycles - like the Wii for example, I think will probably be 'replaced' by the 'Wii 2' in a much shorter time frame than the Ps2 was with the Ps3.

Stop using previous generations as a road map, history doesn't work that way.

:lol
Of course it exceeds previous gen, probably Wii alone sells as fast as PS2+Xbx+GC combined, not to mentioned that 360 and PS3 are also selling some hardware as well. Plus handheld market is much bigger than it used to be. And no, Wii will not be killed quickly.

The PS2 was the best fucking system of all time and you will watch your filthy whore mouth when you speak of it.

This is just wrong on every level.

BTW - lol at PS2 having a 10 year lifecycle. It's basically worthless now, it's been collecting dust in my house for such a long time now.

 

[NEO Frog]

Without BC, it's gonna be a little harder to convert those PS2 owners.

 

[Lion Heart]

Fuck you Sony for trying to give me a product that lasts.

:lol Can you believe the nerve of Sony

 

[Busty]

The only console that is future proof is the console that wins the war. None of these consoles are future proof as shown by Sony being deep in development with PS4 ( confirmed by Mr Harrison in his reasons for leaving. ). MS is also in development as it Nintendo.

Are you suggesting that none of the current consoles are future proof because their manufacturers are currently developing new iterations?

For something to be deemed 'future proof' it doesn't mean it has to have the ability to actually stop the passing of time, effectively halting the time/space continuim.

Or perhaps that's what Ken was talking about then he talked about 4D.

 

[tha_con]

What I don't get is why its so hard for some people to figure out why the PS1 and PS2 lasted for 10 years while the Saturn, N64, Dreamcast, Xbox, and Gamecube did not. Seeing as it is so difficult, I'll give you a hint, it's not because the PS1and PS2 were made by Sony and it's for a reason that is completely unapplicable to the PS3.

I'm not saying the PS3 won't still be supported in 10 years (virtually every system is) or that a trickle of games may not be coming out (aren't a couple Dreamcast games still made each year?) but the PS3 surviving as a viable gaming platform for most consumers and the industry for 10 years like the PS1 and PS2 did is out of the question at this point.

When the PS3 hits $199 in a few years, we'll see how your statements stand. They'll probably crumble, and you will have long forgotten about the ridiculous words you just typed.

Comparing PS3 at it's CURRENT PRICE to the other generations is stupid. If the PS3 *STILL* doesn't sell well at sub $200 prices, THEN you can start to run your active mouth, until then, I think it's very plausible that Sony will support the PS3 for 10 years. They're finally turning a small profit, and within 12 months it will grow. As long as Sony makes PROFIT (if you didn't know, this means MONEY) they will continue to support the PS3.

 

[Kill Your Masters]

Fuck you Sony for trying to convince me a product will last that long.

Fixed.

Nobody can guarantee or promise full 10 years of awesome lineups, not even Sony. No, especially not Sony.