So which is more future proof?

[Titanio]

Headset

Ethernet Cable

Right, ok..but these aren't really things that are part of the box itself.

Not that I'll need an ethernet cable, since I'll just be connecting it via my wireless network.

What peripherals do you actually think the PS3 supports that the 360 will not? Also, how much do you think that hard drive will actually cost for the PS3?

No, I'm saying to match the level of features in PS3, you'd need to buy far more peripherals for X360 than vice versa. You'd need to buy a Hard Disk, pretty much (this is assuming one comes as standard in X360, which has been a point of much speculation lately). With X360, you'd need to buy a wifi adaptor, a next-gen optical disk drive, a display adaptor (for digital output and/or dual output) and so on. Some of those things it may not be even technically possible to do, but assuming you could, your shopping list would be longer than it would be for PS3.

And how does this fit into your "It's a console, not a PC" comment you made earlier?

Hmm? Do you mean my reference to shader models? That's a completely seperate point. But I'm not really sure what you're getting at.

 

[BlueTsunami]

Well it's also a waste of money to buy a box full of features no one will ever use... Come on, six usb ports? Two HDMI ports? Who even has two HDTVs!?

Wow...I can see where this thread is going....wait...its already there.

*is ashamed that he posted in this thread

But, I guess I already jumped that line, I must say that your opinion on thing people will never use is an opinion, also...if you can't see it..then i'll clue you in...Sony is trying to make this as "computer-like" as possible. 6 USB Ports? I can foresee two being used for maybe a keyboard and mouse, the others....well, just like on a PC, everyone has like 2 or 3 USB ports that they never touch.

I also want to state that I didn't criticize Microsot for what they put in or left out. I stated that if they release a console in the next 3 years that it would be such a waste of money (since they didn't allow the 360 to amass as much money as possible). I don't think MS would do that since it doesn't seem sound business wise...but who knows.

 

[Jawed]

There's been talk that PS3 has been designed to last for around 10 years.

Does anyone think that'll be the case?

Also, if Sony had designed the PS2 "to last for 10 years", it presumably would have had "beefier" components, but pretty much the same architecture. And presumably wouldn't be being replaced by PS3 in the next year (ish).

If that was the case, could a "beefier" PS2 have competed against XB360, or any other console coming out at around the five or six year mark?

I don't believe PS3 is designed to last for 10 years. Just curious if anyone actually takes that seriously...

Jawed

 

[Carl B]

There's been talk that PS3 has been designed to last for around 10 years.

Does anyone think that'll be the case?

Also, if Sony had designed the PS2 "to last for 10 years", it presumably would have had "beefier" components, but pretty much the same architecture. And presumably wouldn't be being replaced by PS3 in the next year (ish).

If that was the case, could a "beefier" PS2 have competed against XB360, or any other console coming out at around the five or six year mark?

I don't believe PS3 is designed to last for 10 years. Just curious if anyone actually takes that seriously...

Jawed

Yeah Jawed, *I* take it seriously - why don't you?

PS1/PSOne lasted for ten years.

PS2/PSTwo will last for roughly ten years I'm sure.

And PS3/PSThree should follow the same.

It's not about being able to compete with the next-gen offerings five years down the road, it's about providing a compelling product proposition for the consumer five+ years down the road. For Sony, blu-ray playback, 1080p output, and seeming functionality with an eye towards a 'networked' world all play a role in that.

It's about: six years from now would the purchase of a PS3 seem logical or illogical, even though PS4 is on shelves? That kind of thing.

I almost bought a PSOne even though I already had a PS2, and there are a lot of people that didn't stop at 'almost.' I see myself in a similar situation with PS3 and the new slimline PSTwo.

 

[BlueTsunami]

There's been talk that PS3 has been designed to last for around 10 years.

Does anyone think that'll be the case?

Also, if Sony had designed the PS2 "to last for 10 years", it presumably would have had "beefier" components, but pretty much the same architecture. And presumably wouldn't be being replaced by PS3 in the next year (ish).

If that was the case, could a "beefier" PS2 have competed against XB360, or any other console coming out at around the five or six year mark?

I don't believe PS3 is designed to last for 10 years. Just curious if anyone actually takes that seriously...

Jawed

Yeah, I don't buy into the 10 year thing. By the 10th year the 4th generation (Xbox being the first) of Microsofts console will probably be out (if they follow a every 4 years release a new platform schedule). The PS3 will look so dated that it would be like supporting a dead platform.

What I DO buy into is the whole trying to be like a PC thing the PS3 is sporting. But I believe by the time the PS3 is released, alot of its components will be taken out. It seems the whole reason that Sony put all that stuff in their was to make the PS3 more powerful than the 360.

EDIT: xbdestroya has a point, just because they state 10 years doesn't mean that theres going to be JUST the PS3 for 10 years....around a certain time the PS4 will be released, but have enough components in the PS3 to prolong its life even throught the release of the PS4.

 

[Carl B]

I think a lot of people are confusing the 'ten year' statement.

It's not ten years until the next Sony console generation guys...

EDIT: Refer to my post two posts ago...

 

[Titanio]

PS3 may not be 10 years on the market as Sony's newest home games console, but it may well be selling for 10 years.

PSone sold millions of units in 2004, ten years after its launch. They've sold well over 20m PSones since launching the PS2 (which, funnily enough, isn't a million miles away from the figures seen by other next-gen competitors).

 

[scooby_dooby]

I don't think a holiday 2009 launch would be all that bad, that's identical to the xbox timeline, give 4 full years for development, plus another 1 or 2 after the next gen starts, which is a solid 6 years of support.

plus I know that in 2009 I'll be hankering for the next step up in gfx,

 

[Titanio]

I don't think a holiday 2009 launch would be all that bad, that's identical to the xbox timeline

The problem is, many think the xbox timeline was too short. Console should have at least a 5 year cycle IMHO. Consoles really only start hitting their stride after 3 or 4 years IMO.

It's in MS's interests for X360 to be able to enjoy a full cycle. It's in publishers' interests. The only reason they'd be hankering to hit the reboot button so soon is if things weren't going too well for X360. If X360 is a big success, you can be sure they'll ride it for as long as possible.

 

[Jawed]

My main feeling about longevity is that the consumer is more fickle, now, than 10+ years ago.

A tech item is practically a consumable item. Mobile phones, DVD players, TV sets, portable music players, etc. etc. They're either:

• priced in the $50-100 "disposable" category (where the cost of running the thing (DVDs, monthly phone bill), even for a light user, is far higher than its purchase cost)
• more expensive, but bought because "they are cool", or there's some indispensible "feature" (i.e. indespensible game in the case of a console). Lots of gamers own more than one console from a given generation, as far as I can tell

The way I see it, the item is bought for what it does, not what it is. The only people who care that it's a PS3 are kids (for playground boasting) and geeks (for internet trolling).

If something "better" appears within 5 years, then the PS3 or XB360, etc., will simply be dumped in favour of the new stuff. 5 years is an awfully long time in consumer electronics.

This is not to say that the PS4 won't be based upon Cell. It seems pretty likely to me that in 5 years a 32-SPE Cell on a single die will be possible.

Jawed

 

[AlphaWolf]

I don't believe PS3 is designed to last for 10 years. Just curious if anyone actually takes that seriously...

Why wouldn't it be? Its merely a commitment to the software people that Sony will be producing machines for that length of time.

 

[Carl B]

My main feeling about longevity is that the consumer is more fickle, now, than 10+ years ago.

A tech item is practically a consumable item. Mobile phones, DVD players, TV sets, portable music players, etc. etc. They're either:

• priced in the $50-100 "disposable" category (where the cost of running the thing (DVD's, monthly phone bill), even for a light user, is far higher than its purchase cost)
• more expensive, but bought because "they are cool", or there's some indispensible "feature" (i.e. indespensible game in the case of a console). Lots of gamers own more than one console from a given generation, as far as I can tell

The way I see it, the item is bought for what it does, not what it is. The only people who care that it's a PS3 are kids (for playground boasting) and geeks (for internet trolling).

If something "better" appears within 5 years, then the PS3 or XB360, etc., will simply be dumped in favour of the new stuff. 5 years is an awfully long time in consumer electronics.

This is not to say that the PS4 won't be based upon Cell. It seems pretty likely to me that in 5 years a 32-SPE Cell on a single die will be possible.

Jawed

I'm really not sure that addresses the point I was making though Jawed. You and me may think that way, but not everyone will be able to purchase a newer console when it comes out. Will they buy a new MS or Sony console, even three years into it? At say $200 per system? Who knows. But for those parents who want to get their children a game console, PSThree will be there at ~$99 per console in those initial 'new gen' years, with a bunch of $19.99 'greatest hits' games available as well. In addition, it will serve as their blu-ray player (the 'must have' item of 2011).

It's a random scenario out of nowhere, but just trying to convey a point.

By the way, eventually the PSThree, shortly the PSTwo, and the PSOne all fit under that $50-99 category you pointed out.

I do agree with the increasing fickleness of the electronics consumer; how this will effect Sony down the line with it's console 'lifespans' is yet to be seen. Maybe it'll only last eight years rather than ten - who knows?

 

[Jawed]

Yes and the other side of my argument is that India and China are basically un-tapped markets for game consoles. So I don't doubt sales into those countries of PSOne and PSTwo will continue for the next decade or something.

Until they develop homegrown consoles.

Jawed

 

[Carl B]

Ok well then so we're agreed as to how PS3 might 'last for ten years' then.

Certainly it's not meant to serve as Sony's console 'flagship' for that span.

Anyway for past trend information, here's some sales figures for PSOne for 2000 and 2003, respectively.

Holiday shopping season 2000 - PSOne beats PS2

PSOne sales in 2003 over 3 million

 

[Mefisutoferesu]

You do have a point Jawed... when something better comes a long, consumers want that.

PS2 line up for 2005-6:

OZ
Wanda and the Colossus
Final Fantasy 12
Kingdom Hearts 2
Dragon Quest VIII
Rogue Galaxy
Castlevania: Curse of Darkness
Final Fantasy - Dirge of Cerberus
Radiata Stories
Sly 3: honor among thieves
Soul Calibur 3
Minna Daisuki Katamari Damashi
Shining Force NEO
Wild Arms Alter Code F
Wild Arms The 4th Detonator
Digital Devil Saga -Avatar Tuner- 2
Magna Carta

The thing is, the way I see it, it's gonna be a while till something better comes along.


P.S. Yes, I could have just explained my point, but I was bored.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

Neither console is future proof and nor should they be. It would be a waste of money.

 

[Jawed]

P.S. Yes, I could have just explained my point, but I was bored.

So, that's year one of PS3. But year two? I suppose some of those games will slip into PS3's second year. And some of those games will be abandoned in favour of a re-write for PS3, or lack of money or whatever other fickle game industry events turn up...

Jawed

 

[Mefisutoferesu]

I think I should have just explained my point.

What I was trying to show was that it's more than technology that dictates what most consumers want. It's going to be a good while before the PS3 has any really worthwhile titles... it's the nature of the medium, so it seems... but the current gen libraries are full of brillaint games. If you're just starting out in console gaimng, you'd go where the game are and a few years down the road as you sucked dry this gen of all the games you want to play you move on. I mean I didn't buy a PS2 till sometime after MGS2 was released mainly because it finally had a game I want and I ad pretty much maxed out on the library of games I wanted from PS1. It's the same thing this time around as well... until I've had my fill of this gen or some MUST have PS3 game come out I'm not going to buy it. If I recall correctly it wasn't till the 3rd year of the PS2's life that it actually exceeded sales of the PS1 -- there were too many worthwhile games in the previous gen to move on up.

Basically, aside from technophiles and the hardcore gamers it's the games that define the want not the hardware... there'd be no need for a "killer app" if that wasn't the case.

 

[BlueTsunami]

Neither console is future proof and nor should they be. It would be a waste of money.

...you have a point there. I guess future proof can only truly be a termed used for PCs when it comes to games and stuff...but I see, for one...Blu-Ray as a way to atleast cover Sony's bases on certain things (also to spread their own format, but a higher capactiy disk seems like a base covering move) and of course the already stated gigabit connection.

 

[Tap In]

I agree with the sentiment that the PS3 might sell for 10 years (if Sony supports it that long) but a PS4 will be out within 5 (maybe 6) years of the PS3 because MS or another competitor will have a better, faster more powerful system out.

Also, I agree that this generation still has some life in it. This may be one of the BEST years ever for Xbox1 games coming out. That does not mean that I won't buy the X360 though. I am yearning for better looking/playing games. I'm so DONE with this generation of Console HW. It is being blown away by the PC and as much as I like the games, I'm ready for the new stuff.

Plus MS recognizes this and has secured one of the largest game launches in a 6 month period possibly in the history of gaming for one system. 160 games currently in development 15-35 by year end would be a great achievement.