Sony aims for comeback win with PS3

[John Crichton]

It's funny really, but whenever a Sony rep trots out the "ten year plan", it's used to explain why their system is not doing well. Is the PS3 capable of making it 10 years? Maybe, but who knows what the market will be for then, so who can tell.

It might make it 10 years and lose money every year.

True! LOL

That said, I was thinking Sony was shooting for a PS2-esque 6-7 year cycle with the PS3 all along. So the 10 year thing kinda flies right by me.

I think MS is looking to extend the lifespan somewhat for the 360, and it's possible incremental upgrades would take the place of wholesale changes. At some point I expect "HD required" games and an HD-DVD internal, but it may be 2-3 years down the line.

It's possible. As a dedicated HD gamer, I just hate that I would still have to buy a whole new console with old hardware in it within the next few years.

I'd love to upgrade to an Elite right now but can't justify the price.

The problem is, how much longer for this ground breaking exclusive? Will anyone care by that point?

I assume it will be Final Fantasy or MSG4. But seriously, Final Fantasy will be the one that pushes it into the lead for good in Japan. That doesn't matter much for the US except the revenue stream will keep Sony pumping along if the US is still behind the 360, which it will be for at least another 2 years.

I think the PS3 has been a great boost to BluRay, but I don't think BluRay has been a boost for the PS3. I doubt many folks bought the PS3 to play BluRay discs, though some certainly did. I'm sure more bought the PS3, and then figured they'd buy Blu Rays to get the most from it.

I think next Christmas will be a turning point for HD's, but heck, who can tell.

It certainly should be. This year is a big step and the only thing holding it back is a less than stellar catalogue of HD titles coupled with lack of HD knowledge and OTA broadcasts taking forever to get their HD stuff working properly. Doesn't help that there are tons of confusing options out there for the moment for those not in the know. This will change, but it will take another buying year for that to happen.

True, and for some features it's just a matter of time, but for some stuff (the "killer game" being the lead), you just have to wonder how long you can say "any day now!" without looking goofy.

See, I don't worry about that stuff. I waited FOREVER for killer PS2 titles to come along. Same with the 360. Mass Effect is really the first one that has kept me playing consistently.

I know this is an "industry" type thread but I can't remove myself and my experiences from it.

 

[John Crichton]

I had a Cube, some fun games on it, but I'm no Mario Fanboi, so it was a temporary purchase. I wanted a Wii, until I saw the party games that dominate it.

I may not be the target audience, but I think the folks that buy for the party game are not long term folks. Soon all these homes will have Wiis and they'll only be dragged out for more drunken wii bowling...

I'm not a fanboy of any of the systems, that's why I buy 'em all. That said, I have been really down on Nintendo starting with the N64. The systems they have put out simply don't have the variety of games I like. I was hoping the Wii would buck that trend.

Still, it's a fine system and I'm glad I own one. I'm sure one of these days I'll bust out a few AAA games on it and have a blast again.

 

[drothgery]

I can't get behind this thinking. Sony is going for a much longer console cycle than Microsoft and they have better hardware to do so. And they have history on their side. The PS2 is still going strong into it's 7th year. Microsoft will be looking to release another console in about 2-3 years they way things look. Sony has no such plans and even if their 10 year plan doesn't pan out, I think 6-7 is certainly possible. Devs haven't touched what the PS3 can do yet just like what happened with the PS2.

The problem with that is that Sony has no control over what Microsoft and Nintendo do.

Given the kind of console Nintendo built with the Wii, the expectation certainly has to be that they're planning a new console no later than 2011, and probably sooner. Any time starting next year they could build something competitive in terms of capabilities with the 360 and PS3 and sell it for $250 at a profit. Given what Microsoft did with the original Xbox, figuring that MS will keep the 360 around until past 2010 (which would be 5 years, about the standard for consoles other than the PS2) without releasing a successor seems kind of silly; they'll keep one 360 SKU around and sell it for $150 or less like Sony's selling PS2s for now and was selling PS1s for six years ago (and MS would be doing with original Xboxes if they could make money on it). And if the competion has next-gen hardware out, no leading-edge stuff is going to come to the PS3.

 

[John Crichton]

The problem with that is that Sony has no control over what Microsoft and Nintendo do.

Certainly true. That's why the exclusive content is so important for 2008.

Given the kind of console Nintendo built with the Wii, the expectation certainly has to be that they're planning a new console no later than 2011, and probably sooner. Any time starting next year they could build something competitive in terms of capabilities with the 360 and PS3 and sell it for $250 at a profit.

They could, but then again that waves the middle finger at their Wii market. And it still wouldn't have any more game selection than the last 3 generations.

Given what Microsoft did with the original Xbox, figuring that MS will keep the 360 around until past 2010 (which would be 5 years, about the standard for consoles other than the PS2) without releasing a successor seems kind of silly; they'll keep one 360 SKU around and sell it for $150 or less like Sony's selling PS2s for now and was selling PS1s for six years ago (and MS would be doing with original Xboxes if they could make money on it).

More likely than not, MS will abandon the 360 as they did with the Xbox. They're not big on backwards compatibility. Recreating what Sony has done with the PS2 is going to be awfully hard, especially considering the lack of support for all genres on the 360.

And if the competion has next-gen hardware out, no leading-edge stuff is going to come to the PS3.

Nintendo isn't a player in the HD scene, so they are out. If MS wants to drop a new Xbox on the masses in 3 years it will be starting from scratch in the true HD market. The PS3 will already have a very large install base and a huge library at that point along with a machine that is already plenty capable of doing everything the new Xbox will. And they won't be charging a monthly fee with it. So that MS next gen system better be really good and be 10x more reliable than the POS 360's they pushed out at launch and have only recently fixed.

MS did well so far by jumping the gun and releasing the 360 when they did. I'm curious to see what will happen when the PS3 actually starts giving the 360 some competition. MS has burned lots of good will with these multiple systems, upgrades and overpriced accessories like the hard drives (not that either of the other two are any better).

It's really nice to have both players in the game so far. Sony may be lagging at the moment but the competition should really benefit the gaming population in general. MS could learn a lesson from Sony about hardware and Sony could learn a lesson from MS about what people want from an online console.

 

[Vocenoctum]

More likely than not, MS will abandon the 360 as they did with the Xbox. They're not big on backwards compatibility.

I think that was true of the Xbox for reasons beyond just MS policy, so I don't think it applies as much to the 360. As the 360 keeps lowering in price, it's possible they may keep it around this time.

(Not saying they will, but I do think it'll overlap more this time than the Xbox/Xbox 360 change over.)

 

[Orius]

I really have no idea myself.

Sony is definitely planning for the long term, that much is certain, but Microsoft I think will take advantage of short term lapses. MS seems to be the company that's most responsive to consumers at least in NA. Sony's two big advantages are that no one is playing the 360 in Japan, so Japanese developers who want a big epic game primarily for a Japanese audience will have to go with the PS3. Second, third parties really don't seem to have developed much of anything for the Wii that really seems like a must-have. Maybe if LucasArts does make that lightsaber game, we'll see more (and I can't imagine they're NOT doing it, since people have been drooling over the possibility of a game like that for a while. They'd be stupid NOT to make the game; let's hope they're not rushing it so it will ROCK) games that really taps the Wii's potential.

I'm not really rooting for the PS3. Even with FFXIII, there's really nothing to convine me to want one, especially since they're dumping BC. That's one of the main features of the PS2 I like. I've read that Sony's software-based BC is pretty bad, maybe if they take it out of the console, fix up the problems on the side and offer it as a firmware upgrade for people who want it, I'd be more interested. But by the time a PS3 becomes affordable for me, it'll have no BC, and with a lack of exclusive titles, the 360 will look about as appealing, maybe more.

In the meantime, I'll stick with the PS2. I finally got one earlier this year, and it just seems that it has one of the best libraries on a console, even better than the PS1. Right now, I'm happy stocking up on cheap used games, or even new games that are fairly low priced.

 

[drothgery]

They could, but then again that waves the middle finger at their Wii market. And it still wouldn't have any more game selection than the last 3 generations.

Look at what Nintendo's done with portables, and tell me that gives any indication that Nintendo cares about that.

More likely than not, MS will abandon the 360 as they did with the Xbox. They're not big on backwards compatibility.

You're kidding, right? The guys who built special features into Windows 95 to cover for bugs in Windows 3.x games aren't big on backward compatibility? Microsoft's a company that bends over backward for backward compatiblity, and absolutely hates breaking it, to a point that it causes them problems.

The 360's backward compatiblity is limitted because the hardware is completely different than the original Xbox, and the hardware is completely different because MS couldn't make money on something largely assembled of off-the-shelf parts. And because the 360 was only four years newer, it's not powerful enough to make pure software emulation relatively easy.

Microsoft canned the original Xbox when they launched the 360, and launched the 360 so quickly, because they were still losing money on the original Xbox hardware. If they had been able to make a profit on hardware, they would almost certainly have waited another year before bringing out a next-gen system

 

[John Crichton]

Look at what Nintendo's done with portables, and tell me that gives any indication that Nintendo cares about that.

This is true.

You're kidding, right? The guys who built special features into Windows 95 to cover for bugs in Windows 3.x games aren't big on backward compatibility? Microsoft's a company that bends over backward for backward compatiblity, and absolutely hates breaking it, to a point that it causes them problems.

Perhaps I should have said they aren't very good at delivering good BC.

The 360's backward compatiblity is limitted because the hardware is completely different than the original Xbox, and the hardware is completely different because MS couldn't make money on something largely assembled of off-the-shelf parts. And because the 360 was only four years newer, it's not powerful enough to make pure software emulation relatively easy.

I understand the reasons for crummy BC in the 360. It still gives me zero confidence that they won't do the same thing they did with the original Xbox and basically just dump it when the next thing comes along.

Then again, tech may have advanced so far by that point that all this DLC takes over and no one worries about BC anymore. So, I'm very open to it getting better on the MS, I just want to see it first. My big fear is that I'll still have to pay again to play a game I already have the disc for.

Microsoft canned the original Xbox when they launched the 360, and launched the 360 so quickly, because they were still losing money on the original Xbox hardware. If they had been able to make a profit on hardware, they would almost certainly have waited another year before bringing out a next-gen system

It's still not entirely clear that they are making a profit from the 360's yet either, from what I gather. These are the things that make me think they'll repeat what they did from last gen with BC. That goes for the crappy hardware as well.

As much as I love my 360, I fear every time I fire it up that the RRoD will catch me. I already had it happen once.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

This has been my concern all along. I really hope the system gets more games out besides the regular Nintendo AAA stuff and party games.

Unfortunately, that seems to be Nintendo's M.O. Over the summer, I turned my Wii on for Prime 3. Then when I get Mario Galaxy, I'll turn it on for that. When Brawl comes out, I'll play that into the ground, I'm sure. But I don't even know what's coming after that.

With my XBox I'm currently whittling away at Halo's multiplayer, I'll grab Assassin's Creed and Mass Effect for Christmas, plus there's all these great games I missed like Elder Scrolls IV, Gears of War, and Rainbow Six Vegas. And down the road we're looking at games like GTA4 and Too Human. I just named more 360 games I want than I actually own for the Wii, without really even trying.

 

[Vocenoctum]

I understand the reasons for crummy BC in the 360. It still gives me zero confidence that they won't do the same thing they did with the original Xbox and basically just dump it when the next thing comes along.

What's crummy about 360 BC? I mean, I don't have every game by a long shot, but the titles I still play have all worked great.

Anyway, the Xbox couldn't be built profitably, so it makes sense to kill it and force a jump to the new system. The 360 will continue to drop in price and the possibility is there for long term use. I doubt they'll do it simply because there won't be the sheer demand for it, but it's a possibility.

Then again, tech may have advanced so far by that point that all this DLC takes over and no one worries about BC anymore. So, I'm very open to it getting better on the MS, I just want to see it first. My big fear is that I'll still have to pay again to play a game I already have the disc for.

The new "Xbox originals" downloadables is a good example of that, but yeah, paying $ for something you can find cheaper on disc (used, granted), and not being able to "digitize" your disc for a reduced fee... It'd be interesting though, if they could find a way to register a gamecode, without being able to pick up a used game and use it for a price break.

It's still not entirely clear that they are making a profit from the 360's yet either, from what I gather.

They've said they are, but it's not a sure thing, obviously.

As much as I love my 360, I fear every time I fire it up that the RRoD will catch me. I already had it happen once.

Mind you, the internet is never a good way to judge a person, but since the start you've posted in an anti-MS/ pro-Sony style (at least IMO), so that's generally how you're responded to. I myself had a RRoD by Halo3, but I also had a defunct original XBox and my brother is on his third PS2.

Meanwhile, my Sega Genesis lasted forever!


On the tech side of things, I think all of them are just hoping for tech to resolve in such a manner that they can provide dirt cheap consoles later on, but I don't know that the PS2 experience is repeatable. I saw somewhere that the PS2 parts in the PS3 cost $50ish, and I can't imagine that the actual PS2's made now cost $50ish!

Sony's BC problem is $. They had to cut the cost of the unit (cutting the chips helped) to lower prices. They don't want to pay for software emulation, so that's off the table. From what I gather, the 80's BC is subpar compared to the hardware of the 20/60, and they won't be improving on it. It's a dead deal for Sony right now.

Granted, MS might only have Bob in Accounting's teenage son working on BC on his weekends for $6 a day, but they DO have someone there. They just released a bunch more titles (none of note .

Nintendo just sells you old stuff, no need to monkey with BC.