"Has the PS3 already lost?" Great Gameinformer article.

[DragonMasterAlex]

How so? The statement 'shouldn't be long' is very much open to interpretation. Contrary to Sony's statements, consoles typically have a lifespan of 5+ years. The 360 has been out for almost 2, so there's a strong likelihood that Microsoft's successor to the 360 is already in the works.

In all probability, PS4, Wii 2 and Xbox...whatever, are all being eyeballed already. It's highly unlikely that either are going to be hitting the market before 2010 at the earliest, and honestly I'd bet 2011-2012 as more likely. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if it were 2014 before PS4 hits, unless of course PS3 crashes and burns even more spectacularly than we've already seen.

 

[deception``]

It took them 2 1/2 years to release an updated version with HDMI. If they were already 2 years away from coming out with another console, why would they update their current one?

Your saying 3 or more years is not a long time...Thats just stupid when talking about the gaming industry.

I didn't take his comment quite as literal as you did. Furthermore, neither theNoid or myself offered a specific or estimated date as to when Microsoft's next console is to come out. As such, it is reasonable to treat his comment as one that is [extremely] open-ended and open to interpretation.

Also, keep in mind that Sony has continued to update the PS2 while the PS3 has been in development. Remember the Slimline PS2? Sort of voids your point.

Lastly, 3 years is a pretty long time when it comes to gaming...but it's a lot less than the 10-year lifespan that Sony has claimed for the PS3. Which one do you find more believable - another console within the next 3-5 years or the PS3 lasting for another 9?

EDIT: Looks like Sony is still updating the PS2 as of today.

 

[Bowhuntr11]

I didn't take his comment quite as literal as you did. Furthermore, neither theNoid or myself offered a specific or estimated date as to when Microsoft's next console is to come out. As such, it is reasonable to treat his comment as one that is [extremely] open-ended and open to interpretation.?

I agree but you were the one that threw out the 5+ year for a new console to come out, so I was using that as the basis. And I agree that is easily 3-4 years for another console, and in the gaming industry this is a long time. So when he says shortly, I took it as 1 year. Since that is on the edge of being a short time.?

Also, keep in mind that Sony has continued to update the PS2 while the PS3 has been in development. Remember the Slimline PS2? Sort of voids your point.?

You are right, It was 2 years from the slimline to the new PS3. I didn't say the next 360 wasn't being worked on, as everybody knows it is. But, I just don't think we will see the next 360 in 2 years from now. But it is just my opinion and I probably am wrong, as is 99% of the speculation people make about the gaming consoles.

Lastly, 3 years is a pretty long time when it comes to gaming...but it's a lot less than the 10-year lifespan that Sony has claimed for the PS3. Which one do you find more believable - another console within the next 3-5 years or the PS3 lasting for another 9?

I do believe a new console within the NEXT 3-5 years...but I don't believe in another whole new console within the 3-5 of a console being introduced.




Anyways, I am done...I will let you have the last word. I hate adding on to this 360 vs PS3 vs Wii debate. Its been heard way too much.

 

[kelbear]

PS2 is still holding on pretty respectably.

 

[Damar]

I bought a PS3 about 2 months ago now, and personally I don't regret it.

I don't have an HD TV, I have it connected to my Gateway 24" LCD which supports up to 1080p HD modes rather nicely.

Is it an expensive system? Hell yes. Then again, so is an X360 if you pair it up with it's HD-DVD add-on to make it comparable to the PS3 in HD ability.

Lack of good games is the biggest problem right now (I've only bought 3 so far), and Sony would do well to make sure the developers that haven't walked out on them yet get all the help they need to tackle the steep learning curve of the new architecture. As I recall, when the PS2 first shipped, developers were claiming it was a bear to program for, and here we are yet again it seems.

I'm sort of on the fence about the comment I read on Kotaku.com about how Sony won't pay for exclusive content for the PS3. In some ways I respect that a lot, in others, it's gonna bite em hard in the ass and several other places. MS is willing to spend millions and millions to make sure they get the best games, and if Sony won't match that, then all we end up with is MS coming out on top because they spent more cash, not because they had the better system/games. MS can write a check so big it sounds like a brick when it hits the table, and that pretty much lets them do as they please.

MS never needed to be in the console market, and whereas normally more competitors would be a good thing for consumers, I don't see that so much when MS is one of those companies. They could honestly afford to give away X360's to people for nothing, and still make money at the end of the day on games and licensing deals.

Sony isn't dead, and I don't think they'll end up that way. One thing the Japanese culture has in it's companies that the US usually doesn't is the fact that 2 or 3 bitter rivals will team up to take on their mutual enemy for the betterment of all. Sony needs to get organized and start moving, and moving quickly to retake ground.

Me personally? I wish them luck, because I'd rather have them be neck and neck with MS to give us, the consumer, better choices and more options. A one sided console war isn't going to drive innovation or real development.

Just my wordy $2 worth.

 

[Bowhuntr11]

Yeah I have yet to really hear someone who has bought a PS3 and was open-minded not enjoy it and not want to keep it. Only time I have really seen a PS3 being sold is because someone needs the money back, not because they didn't like it.

 

[Psychotext]

I heard about it a few times in the UK... but we had a very different story with games and overall price here.

 

[G'ßöö]

gimme a fucking break. ..its lost NOTHING. there is no comparison besides sales

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

gimme a fucking break. ..its lost NOTHING. there is no comparison besides sales

well, if you're comparing sales so far, it's definitely losing that . Well, and exclusives. And respect. And customer favor.

Nope, it hasn't lost anything.

 

[Soberteq]

well, if you're comparing sales so far, it's definitely losing that . Well, and exclusives. And respect. And customer favor.

Nope, it hasn't lost anything.

It's all given / given imo. Where they lost exclusive, they didn't lost the title, it's still developed for the PS3. Every company are better releasing their game multi-platform to reach a bigger audience.

As for respect and customer favor, it's all personal opinion. There are a lot of people that are gaining back respect with all the new "freebies" included in firmware updates. There are a lot of people that never lost respect and there are people that never had respect but still pretend they had some before xyz reason showed up.

at the end of the day, it remains that PS3 is still an amazing overpriced piece of hardware with not enough software to justify the purchase.

it managed to sell "ok" but "better then PS2" and "equal to "Xbox360" at equal lifetime.. can you imagine when the price drop and killer apps are finally available ? PS3's future is good imo.

 

[Psychotext]

It's all given / given imo. Where they lost exclusive, they didn't lost the title, it's still developed for the PS3. Every company are better releasing their game multi-platform to reach a bigger audience.

That's actually not true. There are a few titles now that used to be playstation exclusives that aren't even on the platform at all now.

 

[bangmal]

It DOES matter, because in a similar article from IGN, they state that http://gear.ign.com/articles/799/799952p1.html a majority of users don't even know what HD content *is*. That would, clearly, include games. Additionally, you're assuming a lot for Japan, but I do think it's probably close to accurate, but let's face it, that's just a guess. In either case, while PS3 is outdoing 360 in Japan, it's getting *creamed* by Wii.

I think the point still stands: HD has a long way to go before it's mainstream, and this console generation may well be *over* by the time it is.

Your logic is flawed. To decide wheter it is "mainstream" or not is meaningless. The fact is that, HDTV are reasonalbe priced now, it has been very hard to buy a decent TV that is not HD since long ago. The people who can still tolerate the out-dated,bulky, flickering TV are very unlikely to spend $399 to $ 599 console anyway.

 

[GreenMonkey]

At least 40% of HDTV buyers are buying them specifically for gaming consoles and DVD watching, so the answer to your question would be a LOT. Check the article, which specifically refers to people moving to HDTV solely for games and movies.

Check your math. It merely says 40% of HDTV owners hooked it up to gaming and surround sound systems.

If the market penetration of HDTV is 30%, and of those people, 40% of them hooked it to gaming systems (and that sounds reasonable, many HDTVs don't have video game consoles hooked to them)...that is 40% of 30%. That's 12%. 12% isn't A LOT.

It seems like a no-brainer not to cater to 12% of the market, and that's what Nintendo is doing. Besides, plenty of folks with HD like me don't give a damn what the resolution of the game is, if it is a good game. Sure, pretty graphics are nice, but I don't buy games for pretty graphics.

 

[Ghostedge]

The people who can still tolerate the out-dated,bulky, flickering TV are very unlikely to spend $399 to $ 599 console anyway.

Hey now, I still use one of those out-dated TVs. It's actually older than I am, It's a Sony Trinitron that my mom brought from Saudi (Made in Japan), I've used it pretty much everyday and it still works perfect, I don't see a point in replacing it. But that's besides the point since I own a PS3 too; but it's connected to the 60" Sony downstairs.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Your logic is flawed. To decide wheter it is "mainstream" or not is meaningless. The fact is that, HDTV are reasonalbe priced now, it has been very hard to buy a decent TV that is not HD since long ago. The people who can still tolerate the out-dated,bulky, flickering TV are very unlikely to spend $399 to $ 599 console anyway.

No, my logic isn't flawed, yours is. As of just a few *days* ago, 70% of the US market is still an SDTV only home. That's what one would call "the majority", or in other terms, "mainstream". yes, HDTV's are getting more affordable; no, they're not as affordable as SDTV's, and no, HDTV sales have *still* not passed SDTV sales. they *might* this year, but that remains to be seen.

The point all along has been that while $ony and M$ are targeting the "market that might one day be", Ninny targeted "the market that IS", and they've been rewarded for their wisdom. In 4 or 5 years time, the market will *likely* be predominantly HD, but again, that remains to be seen.