Is there a chance the PS3 will get discontinued/unsupported?

[TheDomesticInstitution]

First off, I said I didn't say I don't "love", I said I don't CARE for Blu-ray cause its basically the same as DVD, given "better" graphics. Their discs have better storage space, so what. How much memory does one movie take anyway? A DVD can hold a movie plus hours in extras, so how much more is needed. The only thing the BR disc really help is reducing the number of discs in compilations of TVs shows and cartoons. In other words, saves shelf-space for collectors. Second, I'll do a better example for ya. Go outside and ask someone whether they like HDTV or SDTV, the answer is usually...they don't care. People could ponder less whether HDTV is better than SDTV the same way they take the time to see if the PS3 or 360 display better graphics than the Wii.

Sir, if you haven't sat down and watched a movie in HD then watched a movie in SD then you wouldn't know the difference or care. I could also say that a Blu-Ray disc contains 2-4x the amount of picture information that a standard DVD does, but that obviously means nothing to you.

The difference between a well transferred movie on Blu-ray is as much a difference between a DVD and VHS tape. Do you think VHS looks better than DVD? Do you see a difference? Is there a difference to you between an audio cassette and a CD?

For people that love movies and go to the theater often, Blu-ray is a great consumer product. It is the closest yet that home technology has come to replicating a movie theater experience. If none of these things are important to you, then I understand. But I just think you're being an asshole.

If I were to walk outside when DVDs were just coming out and asked a person if they cared about DVDs more than VHS I'm sure a similar response would have happened. Unless you've seen a great HD picture, then you'd have no frame of reference.

And because you obviously have no idea the storage capacity of optical media, I'll give you a really basic crash course.

CDs around .7 GB
DVDs up to 8.5Gb
BluRays up to 50Gb

In order for a 35mm film to even fit onto a Blu-ray it has to be compressed to over half of its resolution. Now if a standard DVD has a 1/4 to 1/2 the resolution of a Blu-ray how much does a movie have to be compressed to fit onto that?

[Kid Ice]

First off, I said I didn't say I don't "love", I said I don't CARE for Blu-ray cause its basically the same as DVD, given "better" graphics. Their discs have better storage space, so what. How much memory does one movie take anyway? A DVD can hold a movie plus hours in extras, so how much more is needed.

I would be curious to know how much storage space an uncompressed film would take up. Probably more than what's on a BluRay (including uncompressed audio), but I could be mistaken.


. Second, I'll do a better example for ya. Go outside and ask someone whether they like HDTV or SDTV, the answer is usually...they don't care.

Go outside and ask someone if they like Saturn or Dreamcast. I think all of us here are more discriminating than someone you'd happen to run into on the street.


The only half-baked idea was Sony's decision in adding the B-R in the first place instead scheduling as addition for later models. It's practically the reason we all cringed at the $600 price tag. If they didn't have their hot-air-filled heads up their behinds, they realized the PS3 wasn't ready to be tied down by something that's way ahead of its time.

I felt the same way when it was $600 (or was it 700?) Now it seems like a pretty good deal for a hi-def movie player and game system.

And are you really suggesting an ADD ON with a straight face? EDIT: Or you mean addition as in a hardware revision?

[TheDomesticInstitution]

Check out this chart:

HDTV - size and resolution vs. viewing distance (http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html)


Supposedly, at 8' away, you'd need at least a 36" 720p (or 52" 1080p) HDTV to notice the improvement in resolution vs. a 27" SDTV.

You pull out this chart a lot. I understand that you can use the google search function. Awesome. I don't care what this chart says. If you don't own the product in your own home, please don't lecture me.

There's a whole website called avsforum.com. Please take your chart over there and tell them that an HD picture looks the same from 8 feet away as a SD picture on anything smaller than a 36 inch. You'll be in way over your head Rob. Seriously, come back when you own an 30+ HDTV.

[Press_Start]

So your brilliant plan involves making a new PS3 that can't play any of the existing PS3 games?

--Zero

Cause it's better than sitting on your arse and explaining how a $400 system is cheaper than a $200 one. X_x

http://news.vgchartz.com/news.php?id=2759

Without the Blu-Ray, the system can finally be affordable. Although, it means companies would have to re-release they products in non-BR format, but it will give them another chance to rack in more cash, the same way those re-released Gamecube titles for the Wii will probably bring more sales for those who missed out the first time around. Besides look at the 360, it doesn't have Blu-Ray and the games it holds can pull off incredible graphics (when it works).

[c0ldb33r]

You pull out this chart a lot. I understand that you can use the google search function. Awesome. I don't care what this chart says. If you don't own the product in your own home, please don't lecture me...
BLLLLAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH

Will you guys move the "is an HDTV worth it or not" argument to PMs or another thread and quit derailing this one. I'm not posting much in this thread but I find it interesting to read.

[Kid Ice]

Check out this chart:

HDTV - size and resolution vs. viewing distance (http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html)


Supposedly, at 8' away, you'd need at least a 36" 720p (or 52" 1080p) HDTV to notice the improvement in resolution vs. a 27" SDTV.

Aren't SDTVs 480i?

[scooterb23]

Cause it's better than sitting on your arse and explaining how a $400 system is cheaper than a $200 one. X_x

http://news.vgchartz.com/news.php?id=2759

Without the Blu-Ray, the system can finally be affordable. Although, it means companies would have to re-release they products in non-BR format, but it will give them another chance to rack in more cash, the same way those re-released Gamecube titles for the Wii will probably bring more sales for those who missed out the first time around. Besides look at the 360, it doesn't have Blu-Ray and the games it holds can pull off incredible graphics (when it works).

So, you get Sony to remove Blu-Ray...and the Sony fanboys will line up to rebuy the HD stuff they have...but in a lower quality format...

You know, I can actually see that happening.

Someone get this guy a Shamwow commercial...fast. He's a marketing genius.

[Kid Ice]

In order for a 35mm film to even fit onto a Blu-ray it has to be compressed to over half of its resolution. Now if a standard DVD has a 1/4 to 1/2 the resolution of a Blu-ray how much does a movie have to be compressed to fit onto that?

You answered my question just as I was posting it.

[TheDomesticInstitution]

BLLLLAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH

Will you guys move the "is an HDTV worth it or not" argument to PMs or another thread and quit derailing this one. I'm not posting much in this thread but I find it interesting to read.

Sure quote me, but not the original derailer. It wasn't an "is an HDTV worth it thread" till Rob came aboard.

[Dangerboy]

Wouldn't the PS3 without a Blu-Ray drive be...

the Phantom?

[scooterb23]

I think it would only be a George Foreman grill at that point.

[c0ldb33r]

Sure quote me, but not the original derailer. It wasn't an "is an HDTV worth it thread" till Rob came aboard.
Heh sorry, it was intended for all parties. Yours was just the one I happened to click quote :D

[Richter Belmount]

Cause it's better than sitting on your arse and explaining how a $400 system is cheaper than a $200 one. X_x

http://news.vgchartz.com/news.php?id=2759

Without the Blu-Ray, the system can finally be affordable. Although, it means companies would have to re-release they products in non-BR format, but it will give them another chance to rack in more cash, the same way those re-released Gamecube titles for the Wii will probably bring more sales for those who missed out the first time around. Besides look at the 360, it doesn't have Blu-Ray and the games it holds can pull off incredible graphics (when it works).
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b400/smith0009/yourewinner.jpg

[Kid Ice]

Wouldn't the PS3 without a Blu-Ray drive be...

the Phantom?

I'll say it because if I don't I'm sure someone else will.

It would be a 360.

100101010101010101010101001001

(sorry it's been a while since I started a thread that got locked.)

[Kid Ice]

Cause it's better than sitting on your arse and explaining how a $400 system is cheaper than a $200 one. X_x

http://news.vgchartz.com/news.php?id=2759

Without the Blu-Ray, the system can finally be affordable. Although, it means companies would have to re-release they products in non-BR format, but it will give them another chance to rack in more cash, the same way those re-released Gamecube titles for the Wii will probably bring more sales for those who missed out the first time around. Besides look at the 360, it doesn't have Blu-Ray and the games it holds can pull off incredible graphics (when it works).

Boy that link to BengaBenga's blog entry really kinda buried you all the way dude. Sorry.

[Ze_ro]

Without the Blu-Ray, the system can finally be affordable. Although, it means companies would have to re-release they products in non-BR format, but it will give them another chance to rack in more cash, the same way those re-released Gamecube titles for the Wii will probably bring more sales for those who missed out the first time around. Besides look at the 360, it doesn't have Blu-Ray and the games it holds can pull off incredible graphics (when it works).
So just stop releasing Blu-Ray games and shoehorn them all onto DVD's? That would certainly be a nice kick in the balls for everyone who already owns a PS3. It would also remove pretty much the main technological advantage the PS3 has over the 360.

Blu-Ray discs and lasers are coming down in price fast. Given another year, it won't even be an issue.

In any case, the PS3's ace in the hole is Final Fantasy XIII. Sure, it's coming to 360 as well, but most people associate the franchise with the PS3 or will assume it will be better on the PS3, and will buy one purely for FF. Sony is falling behind, but if they can hold it together until then, they have a chance.

--Zero

[Rob2600]

I don't care what this chart says.

If I spent $650 on a 30" TV, I guess I wouldn't care what a chart would say, either.


By the way, I'm not talking about being able to tell the difference between an HD signal vs. an SD signal, both on an HDTV. An SD signal looks like garbage on an HDTV.

I'm talking about being able to notice the difference between an HD signal on a 30" HDTV vs. an SD signal on a 25" SDTV, both at 8' away. Supposedly, the extra resolution is wasted with such a small screen at that distance.


It's like looking at a 25ppi billboard vs. a 300ppi billboard, both at 60' away. You won't be able to notice the difference in resolution at a distance like that.

[ProgrammingAce]

I would be curious to know how much storage space an uncompressed film would take up. Probably more than what's on a BluRay (including uncompressed audio), but I could be mistaken.

Uncompressed digital movie with 7.1 sound takes anywhere from 1 - 5 terabytes, depending on a couple of factors.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

I would be curious to know how much storage space an uncompressed film would take up. Probably more than what's on a BluRay (including uncompressed audio), but I could be mistaken.

I managed the projection booth in local theatre for 7 years.

Modern movie theatre-grade Christie/Disney DLP projectors (the 2007 models anyway, that's the last time I used one) would run movies that would come on HDDs that we would load onto a server, and if my memory serves, none of them were even close to a terabyte ... (if my memory serves) most were around 30 gigs. (Some might have been larger depending on the feature ... maybe up to 100 gigs or so for a 3+ hour feature or disney 3D film.)

I assume that those are generally "uncompressed" as they would display in a native resolution topping out at 4096×2160 at 24 frames per second. (Though, the terabyte sized films that ProAce is referring to could be raw digital studio-master-level versions.)

Considering that most films are still shot on "film" and then converted to the digital format, there's SOME compression that goes on ... but based on the size that these films would take up in theatre-grade digital presentation (in most cases less than 50GB, which is roughly how much space that a Blu-Ray disc holds) there's very little reason that a blu-ray disc couldn't handle well above what would be needed to get the most out of a home theatre setup, even if you have a HUGE home-theatre sized projection screen.

Though, there probably ARE higher grade theatre DLP projectors with higher resolutions that I never had a chance to work with.

[TheDomesticInstitution]

If I spent $650 on a 30" TV, I guess I wouldn't care what a chart would say, either.


Spin this quote anyway you like Rob, but it has nothing to do with how much I paid for the TV. It has to do with what I see.

It's hard to believe this coming from the mouth of someone who has lectured others here about bit depth in computer monitors. My 30 inch TV is a Sony CRT set, and the price paid was fairly reasonable for it. And since you gain most of your knowledge from charts and wikipedia vs. actual experience, I'm sure you'll read how highly regarded sony CRT sets are.





By the way, I'm not talking about being able to tell the difference between an HD signal vs. an SD signal, both on an HDTV. An SD signal looks like garbage on an HDTV.

I'm talking about being able to notice the difference between an HD signal on a 30" HDTV vs. an SD signal on a 25" SDTV, both at 8' away. Supposedly, the extra resolution is wasted with such a small screen at that distance.



What?! For posterity I've included your original trolling attempt below, that makes no mention of this convoluted comparison, that you now claim to have been talking about all along. All I've said all along is that I can tell the difference between a SD and HD transfer of the same movie at 8 feet away on my 30 inch monitor. Re-read my original posts and your direct responses before you try and backtrack. You comparison above in no way relates to my or any other posters original comments. Please stop trolling for the sake of trolling.




From what I understand, sitting six feet away from a 30" HDTV cancels out the extra resolution vs. an SDTV.

A chart you find on the internet does NOT make you an expert.

[Rob2600]

I can tell the difference between a SD and HD transfer of the same movie at 8 feet away on my 30 inch (HD) monitor.

Again, you're talking about noticing a difference between HD content on an HDTV vs. SD content on that very same HDTV. I agree with you, there is a difference.

However, I'm talking about not noticing a difference between watching HD content on a 30" HDTV at 8' away vs. SD content on a 25" SDTV at 8' away. Small screen + large distance = no noticeable difference in resolution.



It's hard to believe this coming from the mouth of someone who has lectured others here about bit depth in computer monitors.

Graphic artists use 30" HD monitors to do high-end graphics work. Do they sit 8' away? No, of course not. Why? Because at 8' away, all of that extra resolution/detail is lost.


That is all.

[TheDomesticInstitution]

Here's a quote on Wikipedia about Digital Projection and it's various resolutions.



"As of 2007 the most common acquisition medium for digitally projected features is 35 mm film scanned and processed at 2K or 4K via digital intermediate. Most digital features to date have been shot at 1920x1080 HD resolution using cameras such as the Sony CineAlta, Panavision Genesis or Thomson Viper. New cameras such as the Arriflex D-20 and Silicon Imaging's SI-2K can capture 2K resolution images, and the Red Digital Cinema Camera Company's Red One can record 4k RAW. Thus the future of digital cinema can be expected to have as a standard 4K capture and 4K projection. Currently in development are other cameras capable of recording 4K RAW, such as Dalsa Corporation's Origin, and cameras capable of recording 5k RAW, such as the RED EPIC, and cameras capable of recording 3k RAW (for budget filmmakers) such as the RED SCARLET"

And the whole digital projection article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinema

Although it doesn't make a mention of how much space is required for an uncompressed digital film. It does talk about the resolutions that films are scanned into the computers, which are notably higher than the resolution that Blu-Rays are encoded.

From personal experience with importing raw DV footage into my computer, here's what I can tell you.

I recently imported 2 and a half hours of regular SD Mini DV footage into my computer. In it's raw and uncompressed form it takes up about 35GBs. Thats regular DV footage which is about half the resolution of the closest High definition format.

[swlovinist]

meanwhile back in the backcave...

[Zap!]

Err? I have a 30 in tube hdtv and it looks amazing.

Just not as amazing as my 1080p 61 incher. The benefits of HD greatly increase in size.

[TheDomesticInstitution]

Again, you're talking about noticing a difference between HD content on an HDTV vs. SD content on that very same HDTV. I agree with you, there is a difference.

However, I'm talking about not noticing a difference between watching HD content on a 30" HDTV at 8' away vs. SD content on a 25" SDTV at 8' away. Small screen + large distance = no noticeable difference in resolution.


I still disagree Rob. For one, the scan lines on a 480 line NTSC set are clearly visible when paired next to an HD set (that either scans progressively or has twice the amount of pitch of an SD set). This is easily visible at 8 feet on sets of these sizes.

From many years of watching DVDs on 24 inch Sony analog set, and then upgrading to a 30 inch Sony HDTV and watching my first HD-DVDs I can assure you, to my eyes, there's a difference. And that's even while watching full-frame movies- which would yield comparable image sizes on both sets.

Unless there's some sort of sound scientific reasoning behind those charts as why this is not possible, I won't agree with you.

One last post before the lock!!

[Zap!]

Rob, err no it doesn't. I happen to own a sony kv30-hs420, which is a 30 inch widescreen HDTV. I have an HD-DVD player and a Dish Network HD receiver hooked up to the TV. I sit approx 8 feet away and can tell an obvious difference between HD and SD. I paid $649 for my TV several years ago, and I am completely happy with it. I don't care what you've read or heard- you're wrong.

If you check out websites like this often, you can catch quite a few 720p LCD, DLP, or Plasma TV's under $600-700 shipped that range anywhere from 32-50 inches. They may not be top of the line, but they're from major manufacturers and when hooked up to a high definition source they look markedly better than SD.

http://dealnews.com/

$60 for a PS3 game? Who says you have to buy a $60 game? You and I both know that there are online deals all the time that offer great PS3 games for well under $30. Bad Company for the PS3 is $20 right now at Best Buy.

And as for a PS3? Dell.com often offers coupon discounts that work on video game systems they sell. Slickdeals.com posts these deals a lot... PS3 systems for $330-ish new.

Late last year Sears had a 42" Samsung plasma for $598. If you are persistent and find a dell.com coupon deal you could get a PS3 for $330. Then pick up a cheap PS3 game for $10 or $20 then you could skate by for under $1000, no bullshit. This isn't counting finding some good used deals. There are awesome deals to be had on the internet from reputable retailers if you just look.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After a bit of browsing here are some current and recently expired online deals.


Here's a few sub $700 HDTV's 32 inch and up. Some of the deals may be no longer active but here they are.

32 Toshiba 720p for $500
http://dealnews.com/Toshiba-REGZA-32-720-p-Widescreen-LCD-HDTV-for-500-free-shipping/271950.html

32 Sharp 720p for $469
http://dealnews.com/Sharp-32-720-p-Widescreen-LCD-HDTV-for-469-free-shipping/273226.html

37 Sharp 720p for $620
http://dealnews.com/Sharp-AQUOS-37-720-p-Widescreen-LCD-HDTV-from-600-20-s-h/271390.html

And here's a recent PS3 deal from Dell.com for a $425 PS3 bundle with a game and 160GB hard drive. Free shipping.

http://dealnews.com/Sony-Play-Station-3-160-GB-Uncharted-Bundle-for-425-free-shipping/273181.html

$500 HDTV + $425 PS3... hmm under $1000. And if you're patient, there are better deals to be had.

Let me find some common ground between you guys. Him saying there's no difference between a 30" 720p HDTV and a standard def old TV is wrong. There is a big difference, it's a lot better. Now, on to his side...

I have a 61" 1080P (true HD) HDTV. It will blow away any small TV on the planet. So while you're correct that your TV is far superior to standard def, it's also far inferior to true HD (1080p) found on some of the larger models. In fact, they don't even make 1080p's on small TV's because it's pointless.

[The 1 2 P]

So um....whats all of this have to do with the PS3 getting discontinued/unsupported?

[TheDomesticInstitution]

So um....whats all of this have to do with the PS3 getting discontinued/unsupported? Nothing. It's my fault for taking the bait to begin with. I apologize.

So hey, how about that kickass PS3?

[j_factor]

I have a 61" 1080P (true HD) HDTV. It will blow away any small TV on the planet. So while you're correct that your TV is far superior to standard def, it's also far inferior to true HD (1080p) found on some of the larger models. In fact, they don't even make 1080p's on small TV's because it's pointless.

http://www.ecost.com/detail.aspx?edp=41716902&source=EWBBASE&cm_mmc=CSE-_-google-_-ewbbase-_-Monitors&ci_src=17588969&ci_sku=41716902

[scooterb23]

I have decided to stop supporting the PS3, it no longer suits my needs.

I fully throw my support behind...

http://www.mcphee.com/items/11761.html

the Yodeling Pickle. This will save you hundreds of dollars, and is bound to be more fun in the long run.

[Fuyukaze]

The PS3 fail? Posible. At this time it's hard to say. Sony's loosing it's edge though and anyone can see it. The cheap blu-ray appeal is quickly fading as more and more players are being offered at cheaper prices by other companies then Sony and the games everyone expected are still in short supply. Look at the best selling games for it currently. The number of exclusives just isnt there right now for many people. Does it have the best hardware? Yes. Hardware doesnt always spell profits and Sony, just like every buisness MUST turn a profit if they wish to remain. Chances right now look like the PS3 could be discontinued somewheres in the future but when is mostly up to Sony. How long can they continue to hemorrhage money is totaly up to them.

[c0ldb33r]

I think the better question is whether there will be a Playstation 4.

[JunkTheMagicDragon]

I would be curious to know how much storage space an uncompressed film would take up. Probably more than what's on a BluRay (including uncompressed audio), but I could be mistaken.

to add to what others have said, here are my calculations, assuming a 1.85:1 aspect ratio, 24-bit color, and a 2 hour runtime:

4K = 3996x2160 = 8,631,360 pixels/frame

8,631,360px/frame * 24 bits/px = 207,152,640 bits/frame

207,152,640 bits/frame * 1bytes/8bits = 25,894,080 bytes/frame

25,894,080 bytes/frame = 24.69 MB/frame

24.69 MB/frame * 24 frames/sec = 592.67 MB/sec

592.67 MB/sec * 7200 sec = 4.07 TB

feel free to correct any errors.

EDIT: forgot to add that 4.07TB is just the video information, not including uncompressed 7.1 audio tracks.

[mr obscure]

[QUOTE=Fuyukaze;1493682]The PS3 fail? The number of exclusives just isnt there right now for many people. Does it have the best hardware? Yes. Hardware doesnt always spell profits

This reminds me of the n64 vs playstation battle where nintendo kept saying:the n64 has better hardware and graphics.but way less games
nintendo lost.

after ps1 and ps2 i would never ever thought sony would lose this console war.And nintendo on top after the n64 and gamecube no way.
But it happend.

Ps3 out of the shops,no way..
They will do a number of price drops first..but..times are different now..
economic crisis..people will not spend a lot of cash on video consoles.
So i think the market will not change and sony is not a video game only company like nintendo.
Sony will look at the big picture if the lose to much money on tv's they will stop making tv's. But if the keep losing money on ps3's?
Don't worry they will stop psp's first.

[swlovinist]

While I agree that Sony is currently dealing with a major financial blow, they will do what they have to keep the game systems in stores. If anything, their current financial situation will make them do more drastic measures to generate sales. I am not a Sony fanboy, and actually have been harsh of all three systems for different reasons. They will have to change their marketing of the PS3 this year, with a price drop hopefully more sooner and later to stay in the race. They are still far from dead, far from axing the system, far from discontinuing the system...if they change their approach with the PS3 this year. If they dont do a price drop or major marketing push within the next six months....things could get a whole lot worse for them in hardware sales. A price drop before major tax returns could be a big win for them.

[Zap!]

I think the better question is whether there will be a Playstation 4.

I be shocked if they didn't try one more time with the success of 1 and 2. But will there be a PS5?

[Zap!]

http://www.ecost.com/detail.aspx?edp=41716902&source=EWBBASE&cm_mmc=CSE-_-google-_-ewbbase-_-Monitors&ci_src=17588969&ci_sku=41716902

Wow, never seen one of those before. I havve to wonder if it's a waste at that size though.

[Rob2600]

http://www.ecost.com/detail.aspx?edp=41716902&source=EWBBASE&cm_mmc=CSE-_-google-_-ewbbase-_-Monitors&ci_src=17588969&ci_sku=41716902


Wow, never seen one of those before. I havve to wonder if it's a waste at that size though.

For $270, it'd probably make a good computer monitor...that's about it.

[Kid Ice]

I have a 61" 1080P (true HD) HDTV. It will blow away any small TV on the planet.

Well if I wanted to throw my dick on the table I could argue that the CRT image on my 30 incher is superior to any grainy LCD set, or a plasma set what with all those goofy colors.

But I really don't give a shit. I was just wondering if anyone thought Mirror's Edge 2 might not make it to PS3.

[Kid Ice]

Uh oh........

http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/13/sony-said-to-be-sitting-on-1-1-billion-annual-loss-first-in-14/
(Sony 1.1 bil loss)

[GrandAmChandler]

Well if I wanted to throw my dick on the table I could argue that the CRT image on my 30 incher is superior to any grainy LCD set, or a plasma set what with all those goofy colors.

But I really don't give a shit. I was just wondering if anyone thought Mirror's Edge 2 might not make it to PS3.

I give this quote and this thread the GAC seal of approval.

A++++ would read again.

[Rob2600]

Uh oh........

http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/13/sony-said-to-be-sitting-on-1-1-billion-annual-loss-first-in-14/
(Sony 1.1 bil loss)

More "uh oh"...December 2008 U.S. sales data:

Wii - 3.25 million
Xbox 360 - 1.35 million
PlayStation 3 - 750,000


IGN - Wii Dominates December Sales (http://wii.ign.com/articles/944/944479p1.html)

[MarioMania]

Sony will keep the PS3 aflot..But would 3rd Party Comps like EA will

[Sudo]

More "uh oh"...December 2008 U.S. sales data:

Wii - 3.25 million
Xbox 360 - 1.35 million
PlayStation 3 - 750,000


IGN - Wii Dominates December Sales (http://wii.ign.com/articles/944/944479p1.html)

Those are not actual numbers, they're predictions. Official NPD numbers will be released on Thursday.


Sony will keep the PS3 aflot..But would 3rd Party Comps like EA will
Of course EA will support the PS3, only an idiot would think otherwise. Their games sell well on it (though admittedly not as much as on 360), and they've begun using the PS3 as the lead SKU when developing them even.

[Kid Ice]

Of course EA will support the PS3, only an idiot would think otherwise.

Have you ever had the feeling you were just not being heard? ;-)

[Fuyukaze]

[QUOTE=Fuyukaze;1493682]The PS3 fail? The number of exclusives just isnt there right now for many people. Does it have the best hardware? Yes. Hardware doesnt always spell profits

This reminds me of the n64 vs playstation battle where nintendo kept saying:the n64 has better hardware and graphics.but way less games
nintendo lost.

after ps1 and ps2 i would never ever thought sony would lose this console war.And nintendo on top after the n64 and gamecube no way.
But it happend.

Ps3 out of the shops,no way..
They will do a number of price drops first..but..times are different now..
economic crisis..people will not spend a lot of cash on video consoles.
So i think the market will not change and sony is not a video game only company like nintendo.
Sony will look at the big picture if the lose to much money on tv's they will stop making tv's. But if the keep losing money on ps3's?
Don't worry they will stop psp's first.
The difference between the PS1 vs N64, PS2 vs Gamecube, and the PS3 anything current is that Nintendo still managed to turn a profit on them practicly from launch where as Sony is still selling the systems at a loss. Sony's losses are not based simply on software licenses loss but upon hardware cost. Sony will keep the PS3 active for atleast a year in my opinion but where it'll be within 2 or more is hard to say.

[Sudo]

[QUOTE=mr obscure;1493775]
The difference between the PS1 vs N64, PS2 vs Gamecube, and the PS3 anything current is that Nintendo still managed to turn a profit on them practicly from launch where as Sony is still selling the systems at a loss. Sony's losses are not based simply on software licenses loss but upon hardware cost. Sony will keep the PS3 active for atleast a year in my opinion but where it'll be within 2 or more is hard to say.

They pretty much HAVE to keep the PS3 alive for a few more years at the very least. They don't have the money to finance a new console launch any earlier than that.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Especially since they are currently enacting heavy cuts in the R&D dept. That is what troubles me the most. Diminished R&D = diminished future of new product. A future Sony box may just be branded with all the components, design and tech outsourced.

[j_factor]

Especially since they are currently enacting heavy cuts in the R&D dept. That is what troubles me the most. Diminished R&D = diminished future of new product. A future Sony box may just be branded with all the components, design and tech outsourced.

Or it could be a slightly upgraded PS3 with a fancy controller. Ahem.

[Lothars]

The PS3 isn't going anywhere and like Slip81 said that once a price drop hits, it will be totally a different story

I still see the PS3 either beating or tieing the 360 by the end of the generation, there's no way the PS3 will be gone and I can also see there being a PS4 eventually.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Or it could be a slightly upgraded PS3 with a fancy controller. Ahem.

Clever. I could see that. The PS4 having a lot in common with today's Wii. Only problem is, the Wii succeeded because it was cheap and radically different than the other boxes and those before it. If they do PS4 that way it will be more like the Gamecube and less the Wii. You can't take the top while playing catch-up.

[TheDomesticInstitution]

Or it could be a slightly upgraded PS3 with a fancy controller. Ahem.

Careful, the apologists are lurking.


EDIT: For all those looking for a good deal on a PS3- here's an 80GB for $316 (+tax I think) on Dell.com, follow the instructions in the linked thread to take advantage of the deal.

http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?t=1129383


EDIT - THURSDAY JAN 15TH-

Today only dell.com small business offers a 42 inch HD plasma from Panasonic for $600. That's right, for the few naysayers- here's 2 deals when combined can get you a 42 inch plasma from a major manufacturer and a PS3 for under $1000. Brand new.

http://dealnews.com/Panasonic-VIERA-42-720-p-Widescreen-Plasma-HDTV-for-600-free-shipping/274154.html