Sony reduces lifespan estimate of PS3

[parallaxscroll]

Sony reduces PS3 lifespan estimate

Sean Ridgeley - Thursday, February 26th, 2009 | 9:30AM (PT)

"[We] don’t know whether the PS3 lifespan will be eight, nine or ten years"

Sony reduces PS3 lifespan estimate

Though maintaining even as recently as a month ago the PlayStation 3 would have a ten-year lifespan, Sony Computer Entertainment Europe boss David Reeves has expressed uncertainty on that front in an upcoming interview with Play magazine.

"The competition will have new models on the market by the end of the PS3," he commented. "I have no doubt and we’ll have to be fast on our feet.....I don’t know whether the PS3 lifespan will be eight, nine or ten years."

He noted PlayStation 4 is not as of now "on the horizon".

Sony stated two weeks ago their current console is "inherently future-proof", and would surely outlast the PS2, which is now going eight years strong.


http://www.neoseeker.com/news/9976-sony-reduces-ps3-lifespan-estimate/

[Clownzilla]

A system's lifespan should be based on what their competition releases and not what the parent company would like. From a gamer's standpoint I would LOVE a ten year system lifespan. From a business standpoint Sony would be complete fools if they stuck to the 10 year plan. I also find that the "future proof" comment is a little cocky. How does Sony know if Nintendo, Microsoft, or even a new competitor will or won't come out with a system more sought after than theirs within ten years?

[Trebuken]

It's seems a foregone conclusion that the next Xbox will have much more horesepower (CPU/GPU) then the PS3, but how much more?

Also what can Nintendo do? I would be surprised if their next system does not compare to the PS3 in horsepower, but instead tries to rely on innvoative controls and shovelware. Had Nintendo banked enough money to get some horsepower for their next console? or are we seeing a SuperNova here with the Wii, doomed to become the white dwarf of the gaming industry?

[TheDomesticInstitution]

Sony may have made a system too powerful for this generation. It's competitors will be forced to upgrade their hardware long before Sony needs to think about doing so. Storage limitations of DVD's are something Microsoft will have to address way before Sony has to, and are probably the biggest shortcoming of the 360 from a technological standpoint. Not to mention hardware issues. Now Nintendo on the other hand is a wild card. While the console obviously is stunted as far as horsepower and storage space, that has seemingly no effect on sales and the types of games they make. Who knows what's next for Nintendo? Although it's technological limitations will surely need to be addressed in the near future, right?


EDIT (Added Thought): As far as I know games aren't coming close to pushing the technological limitations of the PS3. If Sony decides to upgrade when Nintendo and Microsoft do- and it's all sooner then we thought, what exactly will Sony improve? Maybe the processor or GPU (like Ed Oscuro) mentioned? I don't have any idea, because for the foreseeable future PS3 is more than adequate enough for me. Just how big and graphically advanced will games be in another 5 years?

[Ed Oscuro]

Sony may have made a system too powerful for this generation.
Seems like a reasonable suggestion to me, considering the price of the console.

Interesting how the MS and Sony systems put so much into the CPU side of things. I think many people would rather have more GPU horsepower instead (in these recent generations, that's the part of the console that becomes outmoded the quickest).

[Iron Draggon]

How does Sony know if Nintendo, Microsoft, or even a new competitor will or won't come out with a system more sought after than theirs within ten years?

well obviously they're still in denial that Nintendo's current console is already far more sought after than the PS3, so let them stay in denial for 10 years... who cares besides people who already bought a PS3? nobody... nobody at all

[The 1 2 P]

Seeing as how they are in last place(and have been for the entire two plus years they've been in this generation) they really have to change their statements. Back in early 2006 Sony was almost certain that their console would swoop down from the skies above in November 2006 to lay waste to all the competition with the mighty stroke of their brand loyal Playstation logo. Too bad for them the industry as a whole had moved on from them.

While they are still relevant they are definitely no longer the top dogs. And hanging on to their last place system for several years after the competition puts out new systems would also be ill advised. I think that when the new Xbox and Wii launch(most likely 2011or 2012) Sony will look at their finances and if the PS3 still isn't turning a profit it will be dropped.

[swlovinist]

****Caution long rant****


I want to state that I am an owner of all their consoles, and a HUGE PS1/PS2 fan.

At some point, Sony has to face the music that the PS3 has to either 1. Change Dramatically. 2. Be quietly discontinued. The company will not be able to float the PS3 with huge financial losses for years to come. Some point soon, Sony has to face the music that they are getting hammered with their console that is an pretty big sales disappointment(I will not state an epic fail). It is going on two and a half years now, and the public has spoken with their wallets....they dont like the current options of the PS3.

I am not a sony basher(I own a PS3 and like it.) but it is not progressing as a successful system like the other two consoles have been. I hope either a big redesign/price drop/relaunch of a future Sony is coming(I hear about it but dont see it) If not, you can kiss the chances of the PS3 being around a mere couple more years goodbye. At this point, I dont even think a price drop would really help them, their big problem is image(it is called new marketing, redesign, and approach).

Trying to sell a high end system at $400 with light software support is not going to get you more than a couple more years in economic hardships. It will take more than a price drop and Killzone 2 to save their ass. Holy cow, the more I think about how I love what the PS2 is, the more it pisses me off how "off the mark" the PS3 is.

Sony, figure it the fuck out with your "under the hood" bad ass system that has been marketed by headless retarded monkeys.

[Ed Oscuro]

I think Sony's problem is becoming, if not right now, the success of their rivals having siphoned off exclusives, talent, and buzz; and having better distribution systems or price points early on. A lot of that was due to the price, a lot was also due to the distribution system of Live (and also Steam, which surely steals a few sales of full PS3 games).

PSN seems to me a relatively low-profit channel as it stands, partly because a lot of people already have the PSX games they want (or have moved on and so won't re-buy them from PSN); it's the old paradox of making a thing to last and putting yourself out of business in the process. I think it's probably a safe bet that a person who has a PS3 is more likely to have some old PSX games, or to just not care, than somebody with the competing systems on account of how expensive the PS3 was (which should mean you get more long-time fans who never dumped their PSX library, people with the ability to buy a hard copy of whatever they want, and early adopters who don't care about old stuff). That, and there's no buzz around old PSX games. That leaves them in the unenviable position of mainly selling cheaper quality homebrew games and the like.

On the high end, there doesn't seem to be enough differentiation between the PS3 and the 360 in terms of OMG GRAPHICS, and Live has done better for MS - either user friendliness or the sheer size of the user base. Not hard to guess that people, being social critters, are going to gravitate towards the system with a reputation for being most well-rounded.

[parallaxscroll]

It's seems a foregone conclusion that the next Xbox will have much more horesepower (CPU/GPU) then the PS3, but how much more?

Probably much more. A generational leap. The Xbox 360 is somewhat behind the PS3 in terms of CPU, but it's ahead of PS3 in terms of GPU. The Xenos GPU in 360 is somewhat better/more powerful than the RSX GPU in PS3. Both consoles are on the same level. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. The next generation Xbox should far surpass both 360 and PS3 in CPU/GPU, given that it'll be coming 6-7 years after 360 and 5-6 years after PS3. The leap should be bigger than from Xbox1 to 360 due to the longer period of time allowing a bigger advancement in technology, assuming Microsoft goes for a high-powered machine and not a GCN-to-Wii-like speed bump of the current 360.



Also what can Nintendo do? I would be surprised if their next system does not compare to the PS3 in horsepower, but instead tries to rely on innvoative controls and shovelware. Had Nintendo banked enough money to get some horsepower for their next console? or are we seeing a SuperNova here with the Wii, doomed to become the white dwarf of the gaming industry?

I expect Nintendo Wii2/WiiHD to have a duel core PowerPC CPU, less complex than the triple-core CPU Xenon in 360 and much less complex than CELL in PS3. Overall it should be comparable in power to Xenon, but not CELL. As for the GPU, I expect it to be roughly equal to Xenos in 360 if not slightly or somewhat more powerful. It should be able to handle all the HD resolutions well including 1080p. Perhaps a bit more fillrate than Xenos or RSX and comparable shader power. It won't be anywhere near the GPUs going into the next-gen Xbox or PS4. An Xbox360+ class system in 2011 or 2012 will be almost as low-end and outdated as Wii was in 2006, but it won't matter because hardware is becoming somewhat less important than it used to be. Price and appeal are more important now. Nintendo hit that perfectly with Wii and I expect that to continue with Wii2/WiiHD.

[Emuaust]

Sony reduces PS3 lifespan estimate

They decided the console would be a moderate success until november last year...

[Sonicwolf]

A system's lifespan should be based on what their competition releases and not what the parent company would like.

I have always felt that is should be based on consumer demand. If there is still demand for the system, continue to make it. The Nintendo Entertainment System was made for years after its successor was out because there was still demand for it.

[Berserker]

I have always felt that is should be based on consumer demand. If there is still demand for the system, continue to make it. The Nintendo Entertainment System was made for years after its successor was out because there was still demand for it.

Right, but at the same time, as a console developer you need to at least try and anticipate when the life cycle of your current console is going to wind down or end, so you'll have a good idea of when to start investing resources developing the next generation, because you're going to want the end of one to coincide as closely as possible with the start of the next. You can't just sit on your laurels and wait for everyone to get tired of your current machine before you begin that, because as we know these things take sometimes years to pull together, and by then you'd be dead in the water.

Of course, I also see a huge difference between trying to gauge or anticipate what will happen in reality, and substituting your own reality... the latter of which is what Sony's been doing for a good while now.

[Sonicwolf]

Right, but at the same time, as a console developer you need to at least try and anticipate when the life cycle of your current console is going to wind down or end, so you'll have a good idea of when to start investing resources developing the next generation, because you're going to want the end of one to coincide as closely as possible with the start of the next. You can't just sit on your laurels and wait for everyone to get tired of your current machine before you begin that, because as we know these things take sometimes years to pull together, and by then you'd be dead in the water.

Of course, I also see a huge difference between trying to gauge or anticipate what will happen in reality, and substituting your own reality... the latter of which is what Sony's been doing for a good while now.

One thing I cant stand is when a console is popular and the manufacturer releases a new one and cuts the other one off cold turkey. The support of the Super Nintendo after the Nintendo 64 came out seems poor compared to the support of the Nintendo Entertainment System after the launch of the Super Nintendo.

[parallelprophet]

SEGA's gonna come back and shut'em all down! Woot!

Seriously though, I'd love to see Sammy/SEGA combine forces and put out a super system. Somebody eventually will join the race....Nintendo came out of nowhere and shut down Atari, Sony did the same to Nintendo (until the Wii) and then Microsoft did it to Sony......who knows where the next competitor will come from.....Apple maybe?

One thing remains.....new blood always steps in.

[Sonicwolf]

SEGA's gonna come back and shut'em all down! Woot!

Seriously though, I'd love to see Sammy/SEGA combine forces and put out a super system. Somebody eventually will join the race....Nintendo came out of nowhere and shut down Atari, Sony did the same to Nintendo (until the Wii) and then Microsoft did it to Sony......who knows where the next competitor will come from.....Apple maybe?

One thing remains.....new blood always steps in.

Nintendo didnt really shut down Atari, Atari and several other companies shut themselves down and Nintendo came in an absorbed the market like a giant amoeba... (In North America that is)

[parallelprophet]

I agree to a point, but Nintendo had a huge part in their demise.

[MachineGex]

I agree to a point, but Nintendo had a huge part in their demise.

I dont know about that. If anything, Nintendo gave Atari another chance by reviving the home video game market. Hadn't Atari given up on home video games and was focusing on PCs? I thought the only reason Atari re-enter the video game market was because of the success of the NES. I wonder what would have happened if Atari had released the 7800 a few years earlier or if Atari released something like the 7800 instead of the 5200.

[dr101z]

It always helps to read between the lines...

--------------------

Sony reduces PS3 lifespan estimate

Sean Ridgeley - Thursday, February 26th, 2009 | 9:30AM (PT)

"[We] don’t know whether the PS3 lifespan will be eight, nine or ten more months"

Sony reduces PS3 lifespan estimate

Though maintaining even as recently as a month ago the PlayStation 3 would have ten more month's in its lifespan, Sony Computer Entertainment Europe boss David Reeves has expressed uncertainty on that front in an upcoming interview with Play magazine.

"The competition will have new models on the market since they will have so much money from the profits of their current generation systems," he commented. "I have no doubt and we’ll have to be fast on our feet.....I don’t know whether the PS3 lifespan will be eight, nine or ten more months."

He noted PlayStation 4 is not as of now "on the horizon, as we are still losing money with the PS3. Maybe one day, if we actually break even on it, we might consider PlayStation 4, but that would really contradict our "future proof" motto for the PS3".

Sony stated two weeks ago their current console is "inherently future-proof, since talk of something else that could lose so much money is a firing offense inside the company", and would surely not outlast the PS2, which is now going eight years strong.

------------------
Seriously though, Sony should have opted for DVD instead of Blu-Ray if for nothing else than to save money. Expecting the public to pay $600 for just the system itself and just because it had "PlayStation" in its title was blind arrogance on their part. They're losing money on it at the more affordable $400 price point several years after launch.

They're just damn lucky at this point that Blu-Ray won the HD format battle. Just think of what would have happened if HD-DVD would have won and Sony was stuck being the only producer of a defeated format that was an integral part of their system.

[Steve W]

They're just damn lucky at this point that Blu-Ray won the HD format battle. Just think of what would have happened if HD-DVD would have won and Sony was stuck being the only producer of a defeated format that was an integral part of their system.
They would have still tried to push Blu-Ray, even if HD-DVD was the one all other movie companies chose. Sony doesn't like to give up on their proprietary technology, like memory sticks, Mini-Discs, Beta, etc. They were all overwhelmed in the marketplace by equal or superior technology, but Sony wouldn't let them go. I'm still amazed by how long they kept Mini-Discs on the market. Anyway, back to the point. Blu-Ray would have been supported by Sony's movie branch, but probably nobody else, and it would essentially be like the PSP's movie format (which I can't recall the name of).

[chicnstu]

Wii2/WiiHD[...] [with] an Xbox360+ class system in 2011 or 2012 will be almost as low-end and outdated as Wii was in 2006, but it won't matter because hardware is becoming somewhat less important than it used to be. Price and appeal are more important now. Nintendo hit that perfectly with Wii and I expect that to continue with Wii2/WiiHD.

People will probably still complain and bring up the same argument we are seeing this generation:

"Developers can put so more content into a 360/PS3 game than a Wii game."

But isn't it amazing how much Rockstar managed to fit into the DS GTA? And isn't Super Mario Galaxy a beautiful game?

[parallelprophet]

I dont know about that. If anything, Nintendo gave Atari another chance by reviving the home video game market. Hadn't Atari given up on home video games and was focusing on PCs? I thought the only reason Atari re-enter the video game market was because of the success of the NES. I wonder what would have happened if Atari had released the 7800 a few years earlier or if Atari released something like the 7800 instead of the 5200.

My take on it is this: Atari was the reason for their own demise. Nintendo saw a window and became a super power. However, BECAUSE of Nintendo's stronghold Atari was unable to resume a legacy even though they tried....regardless of whether Nintendo gave them the window of opportunity for a comeback or not. They did try to come back (probably in thanks to Nintendo paving the new way) but they still were unable to defeat the giant. Thus it could be considered that Nintendo was still the ultimate defeat of an Atari comeback.

[Iron Draggon]

I expect Nintendo Wii2/WiiHD to have a duel core PowerPC CPU, less complex than the triple-core CPU Xenon in 360 and much less complex than CELL in PS3. Overall it should be comparable in power to Xenon, but not CELL. As for the GPU, I expect it to be roughly equal to Xenos in 360 if not slightly or somewhat more powerful. It should be able to handle all the HD resolutions well including 1080p. Perhaps a bit more fillrate than Xenos or RSX and comparable shader power. It won't be anywhere near the GPUs going into the next-gen Xbox or PS4. An Xbox360+ class system in 2011 or 2012 will be almost as low-end and outdated as Wii was in 2006, but it won't matter because hardware is becoming somewhat less important than it used to be. Price and appeal are more important now. Nintendo hit that perfectly with Wii and I expect that to continue with Wii2/WiiHD.

the only thing that could keep Wii2/WiiHD from being as successful as the Wii is would be if it wasn't backwards compatible with the Wii... but seeing as how the Wii is backwards compatible with the Gamecube, it's doubtful that Nintendo's next system won't be Wii compatible... and it's likely that the Wii's backwards compatibility with the Gamecube has alot to do with why it's so successful too... the Gamecube may have finished in last place behind the XBOX & the PS2, but obviously it still sold well enough to merit making the Wii backwards compatible with it... but even if that's not the case, the fact that Nintendo's current system is 100% backwards compatible with their previous system surely has alot to do with their current system's success... meanwhile, the XBOX360 is only partially backwards compatible with the XBOX, and the PS3 has foolishly dropped its PS2 backwards compatibility, while retaining its PS1 backwards compatibility, which from what I've heard is only partial as well... so it seems the lesson that MS & Sony need to learn is that people are tired of buying new systems that they can't play all their old games on... it's like losing the ability to play all your old PC games every time you upgrade... eventually, the losses of upgrading outweigh the gains... most people don't want to have to keep their old systems when they buy new ones, just so they can still play all their old games... especially when it's alot cheaper to just keep the old system and grab up new games for it when their prices start dropping dramatically due to the release of the new system... and also when many of the new games are just upgrades of the old games

Sega should've taught the whole industry a valuable lesson, but apparently only Nintendo learned from them... you don't release new systems every few years, and then lazily fill most of their libraries with slightly upgraded versions of the same old games... people don't take very kindly to that, and rightfully so... especially at today's game prices... I think alot of people have grown tired of the sequelitis that all game consoles suffer from as well... sequels may still be selling, but they're not selling as well as the originals did, so it takes alot more than that to make a successful system these days... and the Wii has delivered that in spades, while the other systems have stuck to the same old formulas of the past, which are no longer relevant... the Wii is selling like hotcakes because of its unique controls, backwards compatibility, cheap price, and cheap games, as well as the trusted and well established Nintendo brand name... meanwhile, the XBOX360 & the PS3 are relying mainly on brand loyalty to carry them through the current generation, and it's very obvious now that simply isn't enough anymore... MS & Sony may be as trusted and well established as Nintendo is, but when that's about all they're bringing to the table this generation, it's no wonder why Nintendo is kicking their asses... so no wonder they were so content to let the Gamecube lag behind in 3rd place throughout the previous generation... who suspected that they were gonna create an increased demand for all their old Gamecube games when they released their new system? nobody but they knew it... and that's exactly what they've done... now I'm not only collecting for the Wii, but I'm looking at the Gamecube's library for even more new Wii games... it was a questionable marketing tactic to do what they did, but now they've proven that it's the way to go from now on... until somebody else sets the entire industry on its ear again, by doing something completely different from what everyone else is doing... that's the #1 thing that Nintendo got right this time, and it's been the what they've gotten right with all of their systems... the NES revived the industry because it was radically different from the Atari 2600, and every system they've released since then has been much more innovative than their competition's systems have been... rather than relying solely on hardware specs to impress buyers, they rely on innovation to do it... meanwhile, Sony obviously thought that hardware specs alone would do the same thing for them that hardware specs did for them when they released the PS1 & the PS2... but clearly that just doesn't cut it anymore... otherwise, the Wii would be in last place, like the Gamecube was last time

[Atari 5200]

Now Nintendo on the other hand is a wild card. While the console obviously is stunted as far as horsepower and storage space, that has seemingly no effect on sales and the types of games they make. Who knows what's next for Nintendo? Although it's technological limitations will surely need to be addressed in the near future, right?



But remember this is Nintendo. That's what they do. Remember the Gameboy? It's tech specs were much lower than it's competition. Remember the gamegear and the lynx? With the economy the way it is, people are going to buy the stuff they can afford, and with the wii being most popular and cheapest fo the three, that's what happens. Same deal back in the gamegear and lynx days. Nintendo was just cheap fun.

[The 1 2 P]

the PSP's movie format (which I can't recall the name of).

They're called umd's and Sony is rumored to be abandoning them when they announce the PSP 2.

[MarioMania]

How many years did it take the PS2 to take off??

Is it different with the PS3

[Lothars]

How many years did it take the PS2 to take off??

Is it different with the PS3

The main difference is that with the PS2 and PS1 era, they were the clear cut winner but with this generation it's not gonna happen even though they have the best system by far but that's fine nobody anticipated the wii's success.

My Biggest issues with this generation is the free pass Microsoft has got with the quality of the 360 hardware, I really think that since it hasn't affected them this generation it will next and if the hardware has anywhere close to the failure rate of the 360, nobody will buy the console.

We will see though.

[bangtango]

My Biggest issues with this generation is the free pass Microsoft has got with the quality of the 360 hardware, I really think that since it hasn't affected them this generation it will next and if the hardware has anywhere close to the failure rate of the 360, nobody will buy the console.

I'd say Microsoft is getting this "free pass" you're referring to because although the system is unreliable, they are at least taking the necessary steps (repairing consoles on their own dime) to make things right.

As for Sony, there is a certain number of people out there who have been waiting years for them to stumble.

The same thing was going on with Nintendo at one time. Around the time the Saturn and Playstation came out, I remember reading letters every month in major gaming magazines from people saying they were going to enjoy watching Nintendo fall, watching them get buried by Sony (who hadn't even released the PS1 yet) and the usual fanboy stuff.

[Berserker]

My Biggest issues with this generation is the free pass Microsoft has got with the quality of the 360 hardware, I really think that since it hasn't affected them this generation it will next and if the hardware has anywhere close to the failure rate of the 360, nobody will buy the console.

They didn't get a "free pass"; in fact I'd say exactly the opposite is true. They basically had to spend their way through to the other side of the problem by giving everyone 3-year warranties. That was free for us, but it was a huge cost for them, in spite of whatever tactics they could employ in an attempt to offset that cost somewhat, like the shuffling around of refurb units.

I do agree that they can't afford to drop the ball again next generation, but only for the simple reason that they can't afford it. It'll cost too damn much to replace everything for another three years, even for Microsoft. Whether people will buy it or not isn't the issue - they'll still buy it if they still have the guarantee that if it goes bad over the next three years it'll be fixed. The issue is that it's just not a business model that you can maintain indefinitely, even if you have the most money around. Especially in a recession (or even post-recession) economy.

They might try it again - I wouldn't put it past Microsoft not to learn an obvious lesson - but hot damn is it going to cost them. And, it might end up costing us in the form of having one less console option for the next-next-gen.

[Zap!]

Also what can Nintendo do? I would be surprised if their next system does not compare to the PS3 in horsepower, but instead tries to rely on innvoative controls and shovelware. Had Nintendo banked enough money to get some horsepower for their next console? or are we seeing a SuperNova here with the Wii, doomed to become the white dwarf of the gaming industry?

Consider this: Nintendo has come out with 5 console-TV systems. Only once was it the least powerful (Wii) in its generation. Most of the time it's in the middle or the most powerful. Why everyone thinks the next Nintendo will be the least powerful like the Wii is beyond me.

[Zap!]

I expect Nintendo Wii2/WiiHD to have a duel core PowerPC CPU, less complex than the triple-core CPU Xenon in 360 and much less complex than CELL in PS3. Overall it should be comparable in power to Xenon, but not CELL. As for the GPU, I expect it to be roughly equal to Xenos in 360 if not slightly or somewhat more powerful. It should be able to handle all the HD resolutions well including 1080p. Perhaps a bit more fillrate than Xenos or RSX and comparable shader power. It won't be anywhere near the GPUs going into the next-gen Xbox or PS4. An Xbox360+ class system in 2011 or 2012 will be almost as low-end and outdated as Wii was in 2006, but it won't matter because hardware is becoming somewhat less important than it used to be. Price and appeal are more important now. Nintendo hit that perfectly with Wii and I expect that to continue with Wii2/WiiHD.

I hope Nintendo fools you all with the most powerful system next gen. :)

[alexkidd2000]

Is Sony reallly that far behind in 3rd?
I would say that Microsofts install base is grossly overinflated due to two factors, piracy and rrod. How many sales go to people who pirate and dont purchase software? How many sales go to repeat buyers whos systems have died?
Then there is the Wii. They are the clear leader in hardware sales but what is the ratio of software sales to hardware?

I think Sony needs to release a core PS3 with no wireless, no card slots nothing fancy. Selling for $229 and watch it fly off the shelves. They also need to ramp up the Playstation store with every PS1 game and alot of PS2 games available.

[Flack]

A system's lifespan should be based on what their competition releases and not what the parent company would like. From a gamer's standpoint I would LOVE a ten year system lifespan. From a business standpoint Sony would be complete fools if they stuck to the 10 year plan.

I think a system's lifespan should be based on reaching a point where game developers have maxed out a machine's performance and the hardware is limiting the development of new games. Whether or not a game is delivered in hi-def may or may not be a limiting factor to everybody, but that's what the current generation of consoles hedged their bets on (that, and blu-ray, of course). As it stands right now, I don't see the hardware of the PS3 being maxed, pushed, or even tested. I don't understand why they would be talking about a new console at all. Are there any games out where developers have said, "you know, we would have done more but man, the ps3 just doesn't have enough horsepower."?

I don't think it's just gamers that would love a ten year system lifespan. Most systems lose money on core console sales for years, making their money back on accessories and software. I'm sure Sony would love a console that would last for ten years. They could save a ton on R&D for a few years and reap the benefits of software profits. That's really the only aspect where Sony's game plan could possibly pay off.

Has any major company ever had two consoles on the market at the same time competing against one another? That's a scenario I could kind of see -- someone like Sony releasing two consoles; a low end one to compete with the nextgen Wii, and a high end one to interest high end gamers.

[Rob2600]

I think a system's lifespan should be based on reaching a point where game developers have maxed out a machine's performance and the hardware is limiting the development of new games. ... As it stands right now, I don't see the hardware of the PS3 being maxed, pushed, or even tested.

I agree, but with one exception: what if one console is much more complicated to program for than another console? In a situation like that, most developers don't waste time squeezing all of the power out of that particular console when they could get results that are almost as good, much more easily, out of the other console.

Does the PlayStation 3 fall into that category?

[Flack]

I wouldn't know as I don't know anything about programming them, but if that is the case, then shouldn't it's lifespan be over right now?

[rbudrick]

Sony may have made a system too powerful for this generation. It's competitors will be forced to upgrade their hardware long before Sony needs to think about doing so. Storage limitations of DVD's are something Microsoft will have to address way before Sony has to, and are probably the biggest shortcoming of the 360 from a technological standpoint. Not to mention hardware issues. Now Nintendo on the other hand is a wild card. While the console obviously is stunted as far as horsepower and storage space, that has seemingly no effect on sales and the types of games they make. Who knows what's next for Nintendo? Although it's technological limitations will surely need to be addressed in the near future, right?


EDIT (Added Thought): As far as I know games aren't coming close to pushing the technological limitations of the PS3. If Sony decides to upgrade when Nintendo and Microsoft do- and it's all sooner then we thought, what exactly will Sony improve? Maybe the processor or GPU (like Ed Oscuro) mentioned? I don't have any idea, because for the foreseeable future PS3 is more than adequate enough for me. Just how big and graphically advanced will games be in another 5 years?

You make some extremely valid points. With that in mind, I do believe Sony will be forced to release the PS4 long before we see the full potential of the PS3.

-Rob