Stromprophet on 11 March 2007
HappySqurriel said:
The only performance that is important in this context is sales performance ... The PS3 can have all the super-powered cell processors in the world and if it doesn't start selling better Sony will be forced to replace it in 2010 or 2011.
Now, if I was Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo I would be focusing my efforts on producing as powerful of a console as I could for $200-$250 in 2010 or 2011; as we're seeing with the PS3 and XBox 360, we're hitting a point where having greater performance is not that noticeable so pricing your system at $400 or $600 to get better hardware is mostly counter productive.
I'd say 400 dollars is a reasonable price point. I disagree, the 360 and PS3 performance difference in comparison to the Wii is very noticeable. It's more of a question of whether or not you like arcade style games or whether you want all out blockbuster type games that use massive graphics, physics, and complex AI.
For microsoft it would be good for them to support the system longer. A lot of Xbox fans, myself included didn't appreciate the short 4 year life cycle. The first thought in my mind was, didn't I just spend money on this?
7 years, I doubt they go that long. I think Atari and Nintendo were the only consoles to ever go that long with no new system. Playstation usually goes 6 years, Nintendo usually sticks to 5 year life cycles.
