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

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

uh oh ... it never lies

Like House says - Everybody lies.

Apparently even Magic 8 balls.

[c0ldb33r]

ha, I literally lol'd at that

[bangtango]

But looking at it from a 3rd party perspective, does that stuff matter?

btw I don't truly expect either MS or Sony to discontinue their systems.

Let's say I'm in charge of Rockstar. We're doing GTA5. GTA 4 sold ten times better on the 360 (just an estimate). By the time the release window for 5 comes around, I expect the 360 to have an even greater user base than the PS3 than it already does.

Logical conclusion: we're not doing GTA5 for the PS3. It would make more sense to devote those resources to more DLC for the 360.

Next day it's all over the internets "GTA5 is a 360 exclusive!!!" Now the PS3 gets into a bigger hole, more 3rd parties drop support, etc. I'm not saying it kills the system, but it would certainly be reason enough to keep a 360 around.

Using the scenario you presented.....

If Rockstar can make money (i.e. profit) on a GTA5 port to PS3, by all rights that should be all that matters to them. At least if they are in business to make money.

Hypothetically, if that 360 version of GTA5 sells 6 million copies (in 2010) and the PS3 version moves 800,000 to 1.2 million copies during that same time period, then I would think Rockstar can still make money off of both ports.

There may be less profit in a PS3 version of a game that moves a million copies or so while the 360 version of the same game outsells it 3 to 1 (or greater) but that PS3 port can still be profitable enough to make it worthwhile.

Once again, all of this comes from my uninformed musings. I don't own the PS3 or 360 and I don't follow the "business" side of things (such as sales figures, etc.).



On a lighter note, I can tell you one third party who won't be abandoning the PS3 and that is EA Sports. A company brazen enough to port Madden 09 to the long dead Xbox 1 just a few months ago isn't going to abandon whatever user base there is on the PS3 right now or 3-4 years from now.

[gepeto]

It wasn't dead at launch, it had a good first year (9-9/99 to 12-31-99).

What I mean is after reading the behind the scenes on the story of the dreamcast If I recall it was really dead and nver had a chance. The company had major issues. Bernie stolar was fired right before the dreamcast launch. Even with the killer sales at launch I believe from what I read they had tossed the towel in and were just recouping what they could. To me the system was one of the best and underated systems out there. When it came out I was so focused on the system I totally missed the behind the scenes fiasco.


Until the so called hardware was dropped to focus on software.

[Press_Start]

Sony's double edge sword is that it needs to drop the price of the PS3 in order to sell more. But it won't drop the price until the cost of it's component parts come down. That way they can make a profit even when dropping the price. But while waiting for that moment to come they will only lag further and further behind in last place.

Couldn't agree more. The big shiny price tag is the PS3's "Achille's heel" in sales (both hardware and software-wise) and the financial crisis makes it more apparent. Sony must realize now is the moment for action. It's about time it swallows its pride and start cutting the "fat".

A good place to start is the Blu-Ray Player. I'm sorry, but who cares about Blu-Ray? I don't, more importantly, neither does the average consumer. Why spend hundreds more when you can get the same entertainment value and functionality for a fraction of the price? People who buy Blu-Ray are usually the same ones who buy big-screen HDTVs cause they have plenty to spend and given the economic situation, that's a SMALL percentage.

Sony should be opting for non-Blu-Ray PS3s (replaced with DVD players instead) within the price range between 200-250. That way, the system is affordable, appeals to those who're too "mature" for the Wii, and reliable (if the 360 hardware issues keep persistently popping up).

[Ze_ro]

You do realize that PS3 games are on Blu-Ray discs, right?

--Zero

[Giant]

you're obviously forgetting that ps3 games are printed on...blu-ray discs

Edit-guess I was a little late there

[scooterb23]

I don't know why, but if Sony announced tomorrow they are discontinuing the PS3...the unbridled shitstorm of both furious and joyous comments would be a blast to read.

Certainly would brighten up what is setting up to be a very boring Monday.

[Press_Start]

You do realize that PS3 games are on Blu-Ray discs, right?

--Zero

Yes, but where else can Sony significantly cut costs? I know very few programmers made full utilization of its Cell architecture, so opting for a smaller core could help lower costs but not too much. While they're waiting for Blu-Ray cost to drop, the 360 and Wii affordable prices are getting everyone's cash leaving the PS3 anchored by its heavy price tag and sinking fast.

[joedick]

The PS3 isn't going anywhere. The longer it's out there, the cheaper the parts get, the more money sony recoups from the system. This is why they want a 10-year lifecycle.

This reminds me of when people were saying nintendo needed to get out of hardware due to the failures of the gamecube. A system that was profitable for them. From day 1. People seem to think the last place console needs to die. Right now, the market can support three consoles. Forever? maybe not, but for now, yes.

The interesting thing to see will be the next-gen. I can't wait to see everyone's strategy. Lower tech, cheaper systems for Sony? Family friendly controls for Microsoft?

[TheDomesticInstitution]

Yes, but where else can Sony significantly cut costs? I know very few programmers made full utilization of its Cell architecture, so opting for a smaller core could help lower costs but not too much. While they're waiting for Blu-Ray cost to drop, the 360 and Wii affordable prices are getting everyone's cash leaving the PS3 anchored by its heavy price tag and sinking fast.

And you also realize that Blu-Rays are also high-capacity discs that are designed to hold large amounts of data? DVDs then become more of a hinderance than an advantage, because of their smaller capacity. There are practical reasons why Sony uses a Blu-Ray disc, other than awesome high-definition video. And you also realize that there will come a point in this generation or next where standard DVD's will not cut it for some games? I mean you could just spread it across 5 discs, but where's the practicality in that? That and all the games made up until this point would no longer work on "your" new PS3.

Hmm... that sounds really reasonable.

And just because you don't think "high definition" is worth it, doesn't mean that a lot of people out there don't love it. If all new TVs being manufactured are high definition, don't you think that it makes sense that game systems are too? I don't care what anyone says, high definition is not going anywhere. There are too many companies with a vested interest in seeing high definition the new television standard.

There is no way that removing the Blu-ray drive from the PS3 is even feasible from a logical standpoint.

[XYXZYZ]

For the year to March 2009, Sony is now forecasting a net profit of 240 billion yen ($2.23 billion), an operating profit of 470 billion yen and revenue of 9.20 trillion yen. The earlier projections were for a net profit of 290 billion yen, an operating profit of 520 billion yen and revenue of 9.00 trillion yen. Based on this data, and Bloomberg's recent projections regarding the US and Japanese economies for the first quarter of 2009, I have calculated a realistic figure that we, the video game consumers and Sony's shareholders can both rely on.


I believe the naysayers can stop worrying.

[Press_Start]

And just because you don't think "high definition" is worth it, doesn't mean that a lot of people out there don't love it.

People would love to have a mansion, yacht, and a fancy car, too, yet you don't see them dishing out wads of cash for it. Why? People, the average consumer, lack the means or methods to afford such luxuries at this time.

There is no way that removing the Blu-ray drive from the PS3 is even feasible from a logical standpoint.

Neither does keeping your best product at a non-competitive price. Who can afford to spend $400 on a game system AND spend extra hundreds of dollars on games? Little Big Planet was intended to pull the PS3 out of the gutter instead the below expected number show that kids can't convince their parents to pony up the cash while staying on a tight budget. The Blu-ray has acted as both sinker and savior from Day 1 but relatively sinker as the way things stand now. If they don't change, the days ahead for the PS3 will get darker before it gets better.

[scooterb23]

Neither does keeping your best product at a non-competitive price. Who can afford to spend $400 on a game system AND spend extra hundreds of dollars on games?

Well, depending on the site you look at...anywhere from 7.5-12 million people can in the US alone. And when you consider that the other systems, while they don't cost as much...still cost a couple hundred bucks, and a decent selection of games will cost a few hundred more. This can be one factor, but not as big of one as one may think.

[TheDomesticInstitution]

People would love to have a mansion, yacht, and a fancy car, too, yet you don't see them dishing out wads of cash for it. Why? People, the average consumer, lack the means or methods to afford such luxuries at this time.

You compare items that range anywhere from $50,000-$10,000,000 to a high definition television and PS3? Two items when purchased together, can both be had for under $1000 total? I don't see that a fair comparison.

Since when is collecting anything a financially prudent thing to do? You're a member of a web forum devoted to video game collecting, do you see the irony?

[heybtbm]

If it wasn't for Blu-ray's from Netflix...my PS3 probably wouldn't be connected. I can't remember the last disc-based PS3 game I played.

Still, I routinely laugh at the fact that I essentially paid $599.99 for a shiny PS2/PS1. No serious complaints though...I'd rather have this 60 gig than on of those lame no B/C models anyday.

[udisi]

I don't think the PS3 will be a complete failure, that being said I don't think they will finish anywhere but 3rd this generation.

1)The wii is retardedly sucessful, nothing is gonna catch it. Say what you will about it good or bad, it's a buisness sucess and will win this generation.

2)we're a good 3 years into this generation now, developers and publishers have to pick sides quickly to survive themselves. at this point, the wii has outsold everyone thus every publicher wants their games on there, and the 360, has been the system for sales of FPS's, sandbox, and graphics intensive games. The PS3 will still get cross-platform titles, but it's exclusive good game list will be shortened by it's position behind the 360 and wii. They may not want to publish on the wii or 360, but money makes the world go round.

3)PS3 will survive because the JP developers, although they make break excusivity with the PS3 will NOT pull support from a JP company to go exculsively with a US company. Still a stigma there, and it will garentee that the PS3 will still get some good games. Those good games will probably be on 360 though too, as the developers have to go where the sales and money are too.

4)If the PS2 showed me anything, it's that although gamers get pissed off about system reliability, that won't make them go to the competition if the games are still there. I know people who have gone through a half dozens PS2, and a dozen 360's. why? ...These systems have the games, that it. 360 has the publishers and games now, and that will carry the system over the ps3 reguardless of the system failures

I own all 3 systems. I personally like the PS3 best as an interface and system the best. I think the 360 actually has more 1080p games, but really graphics are secondary to me. I probably play my wii most of the 3 as it has more games that I enjoy, mostly first party things. I would by more games for my PS3, but there's just not much I see worth dropping $60 on.

[Nature Boy]

Back to the original questions, I think you're pretty safe sticking with your PS3 and selling your 360. PS3 isn't going anywhere.

It's of course *possible* that a 3rd party game might become 360 exclusive that you'd want to play, but that just seems unlikely to me. If I were you I wouldn't think twice about selling my 360 if I wasn't playing it anymore.

(Of course, if you were I you'd be hooked on getting Achievement points and would probably be in the opposite situation ).

[Press_Start]

You compare items that range anywhere from $50,000-$10,000,000 to a high definition television and PS3? Two items when purchased together, can both be had for under $1000 total? I don't see that a fair comparison.

Since when is collecting anything a financially prudent thing to do? You're a member of a web forum devoted to video game collecting, do you see the irony?

The irony here is you think you got my point but keep missing the mark. What you lack is the understanding that everybody isn't as loose with wallets. I'm coming across from the POV of a person who isn't as devoted and worries about his financial standing in this economic rut. Will I be laid off tomorrow? Do I have enough support my family? How long can I pay off my bills, insurance, mortgages, gasoline, food, etc. These are the questions that most Americans are asking themselves. With companies letting off workers and businesses closing down, I doubt the question on everyone minds is "Should I get a 360 or a PS3?"

As someone else stated, millions of units have been sold already BUT the holidays are over and there isn't much incentive for people to go and get a $400 game system with $60 games not with the competition offering the same for about half the price.

[The 1 2 P]

People seem to think the last place console needs to die. Right now, the market can support three consoles. Forever? maybe not, but for now, yes.

I agree. This may be the longest the market continually supports three different systems when it's all said and done. While the PS3(from last place) will NEVER cetch the Wii, they are less than 10 million behind the 360 so their fans can atleast have a glimmer of hope. And thats actually a good thing because it means that all three will stay supported for the next several years. What that means for us consumers is more healthy competetion. However, if the Wii keeps selling the way it does--that thing may NEVER come down in price. Don't believe me? Then why hasn't the PS2 been lowered to $99(or $49) yet.....9 years later???