Support NeoGAF

[MightyHedgehog]

Please don't tell me I am the only one who thought of him saying that in his Buzz Lightyear voice...

:lol What I thought, too.

Obviously, he can't really say much else given the current reality of the PS3 situation. Sony's got a massive mountain to climb before anything regarding future active lifespan can be taken really seriously, IMO.

 

[SouthernDragon]

Please don't tell me I am the only one who thought of him saying that in his Buzz Lightyear voice...

Holy shit, you can read my mind.

TO INFINITY AND BEYOOOOND!

Also, to the fellow who argues that downloadable content may yet save the PS3;

Good sir, that'd be a great argument, and it may indeed be true. However, it is not true for the current crop of consoles. I ask you this, and answer me truly; could the PS3 conveniently and quickly download a 25-50 GB file onto its hard drive? Sony has repeatedly told me and scolded me over the issue of whether my games need 25-50 GB or not. Apparently they do. So, since games need 25-50 GB, would the PS3 be able to easy support that? I'm just talking about downloading, I have not even gone to the realm of holding that content. Would I need to purchase Blu-Ray disks for every game I download? Would I need a 1 Terabyte drive in order to hold all my purchases?

In short, is it practical or even possible for the PS3 to survive on downloadable content that may reach or exceed 25 GB? For that is what you argue, sir.

 

[Pokeylongo]

Well, if downloadable games became the norm, I'm sure you would see drastic changes in the types of games developers would make. But there's no way it could become the norm within this single generation. It will build towards that until broadband penetration can compete with retail shelves, which will be a while.

 

[besada]

You are in the minority of xbox owners, my friend.

Entirely possible. I'm an early adopter, so I'm used to shorter cycles between upgrades. Anything is better than what I used to pour into PCs. I dug my XBox, but other than Pirates, I didn't buy much that last six months for it. I admit to a preference for new things. I'd submit, watching stuff like the RAZR and the iPhone, that I'm not alone in fondness for the new.

I did say I would have preferred a better BC solution. If MS had been able to deliver the kind of BC Sony has (in the US), those games started on the XBox would have had a place to go. I understand the difficulties they had, but the BC could have made a big difference for them.

 

[kaching]

well, for an answer to that we could look at DS-PSP. which platform will be the longest in the market you think? (cue in- but...but... handhelds!)

The point I'm addressing is whether tech has anything to do with how long a product lasts, not whether it will last the longest. If you're going to be condescending about what's clear to people, perhaps you ought to pay closer attention to what they're actually saying.

Furthermore, lets take a look at the longevity of the original NES, or the Game Boy... people will soon realize that PS3 wont be supported strongly for even 6 years unless the consumers generate profit opportunity for companies with their dollars. thats the way it always has been, and thats the way it will be.

Yes and tech enables new ways to generate profit...isn't that clear to anyone else?

In short, is it practical or even possible for the PS3 to survive on downloadable content that may reach or exceed 25 GB? For that is what you argue, sir.

The faux gentlemanly politeness was a cute touch, wrapped as it were around an absolutist rhetoric that has never been argued by myself nor Sony.

 

[PS360]

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

if nobody cares about graphics... why would PS2 ever stop selling?

Because the attention of the developers/publishers/buying public always moves on to something new, and is doing so now? Because there are hardware improvements in addition to the purely graphical?

 

[CrisKre]

The point I'm addressing is whether tech has anything to do with how long a product lasts, not whether it will last the longest. If you're going to be condescending about what's clear to people, perhaps you ought to pay closer attention to what they're actually saying.

Yes, and what im trying to say is that you are looking at it the wrong way IMO. A product's characteristics, including how technologically advanced it is, is ultimately decided in the design process to be perceived by customers as an attribute of differentiation when compared to the other products in the market. In few words, the fact that PS3 is more technologically advanced is only relevant in relation to the longevity of the products IF consumers see it as incentive to purchase it. Its a business. Money money money.

Yes and tech enables new ways to generate profit...isn't that clear to anyone else?

You probably should pay closer attention to what I intend to say. My comment was meant for those that where saying sony stuck to PSX and PS2 as if it was a "noble" act and nintendo and microsoft deserted their last gen consoles. All of this companies did what common sense and the market dictated, in relation to their respective business plan. and what you say is true, but the business model of all platforms currently on the market is still dictated by the same rules as last gen: software makes them profitable for the most part. Downloadable content is a very small percent of that still, and will be for a few morfe years/gens imo.

 

[SouthernDragon]

The faux gentlemanly politeness was a cute touch, wrapped as it were around an absolutist rhetoric that has never been argued by myself nor Sony.

Oh, sorry. I didn't mean to come off as rude. I type differently at different times. I was into the whole "gentleman" thing a few hours back.

Well, I was under the impression you were arguing that. Seems you weren't. My apologies. But what is your argument? That technology can extend the life of a product? That may certainly be true, but for high tech gadgetry such as the PS3, 10 years seems nigh impossible based on technology and not software support. Since you threw in the clause of "not in first place, of course" I'll ask; will it be there in any meaningful way in the major tracked markets?

Will the PS3 see software support to warrant its continued purchase 10 years from now in the 3 major markets?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did not Sony make PS1s till a ridiculous amount of time, till around 2004? However, by that time, was it impacting the 3 major markets? Nope.*

*I say 3 major markets because I do believe it was still and still is a force in South America.

 

[CrisKre]

if nobody cares about graphics... why would PS2 ever stop selling?

Please. are we gonna go there? products have life cycles. PS2 will stop selling because its reaching the end of its life cycle, which is linked to consumer's perception. Plain and simple. Consumers see it as an "old" product, and thus will not be desirable indefinitely.
Thats exactly why Wii will continue selling in spite of not being graphically significantly more advanced than say the cube. Because the perception is that it is new. Its on the beginning of its life cycle.

People loose track of the fact that any industry is driven by the consumer and what it perceives. Thats why those failing to see that the writing is on the wall (e.i: PS3 demand is not nearly as high as people thought it would be and the trend will probably continue, and Wii has been widely accepted by consumers as the hit system this time around) are up fort a mouthful of disappointment.

 

[kaching]

In few words, the fact that PS3 is more technologically advanced is only relevant in relation to the longevity of the products IF consumers see it as incentive to purchase it. Its a business. Money money money.

Again, your read is off, because this isn't about being technologically advanced per se. Online connectivity is not technologically advanced by today's standards - it has been present in the majority of PCs built over the past decade, and ecommerce and digital distribution have already been explored extensively as a result. But it remained relatively underutilized in this product segment prior to this new generation of hardware. As such, it's a means to an end (which is: money money money), not simply tech added in order for the product to be perceived as technologically advanced.

You probably should pay closer attention to what I intend to say.

Isn't that your job? You quoted me and wrote in direct response to what I said, nowhere indicating you were suddenly addressing some other group.

and what you say is true, but the business model of all platforms currently on the market is still dictated by the same rules as last gen: software makes them profitable for the most part. Downloadable content is a very small percent of that still, and will be for a few morfe years/gens imo.

And software will continue to be what makes them profitable, but the definition of what qualifies as software is rapidly expanding in this marketplace and if you really think that downloadable content (whether fully executable games or content such as levels, skins, etc. for those games) won't comprise a significant portion of profit-generating "software" in 5 yrs, then you're simply out of touch.

But what is your argument? That technology can extend the life of a product?

yes, I thought that was pretty straightforward, seeing as how I was disagreeing with someone who claimed that tech had absolutely nothing to do with the longevity of a platform.

Since you threw in the clause of "not in first place, of course" I'll ask; will it be there in any meaningful way in the major tracked markets?

Sorry, I threw what in where?