TheBigFatJ on 24 August 2007
When the PS3 finally hits $200 to $300 why will consumers choose the PS3 when the majority of the PS2 developers are on another platform?
$300 is a long, long way away for the PS3. The system simply costs a lot, and even as the technology ages and gets cost-reduced, it will still be /relatively/ expensive. New technology often trumps old technology because it costs less to produce -- newer chips can sometimes cost less to produce, or at least provide much more power for approximately the same cost many times. Keep an eye on Intel's costs. They fluctuate, but it often makes sense to push a processor out of the market because the manufacturing costs are higher than newer, faster, better processors.
This is why I don't think the PS3 is a 10 year product. The PS2's cycle has been significantly helped by the fact that it is so much cheaper than the PS3. However, it's very obvious that the PS3's costs will never approach the PS2's current costs, simply because of differences in hardware, amounts of hardware (spinning disks, for example), etc. So when the PS4 releases, it's unlikely the PS3 will cost less than $200. And what if Sony can release the PS4 for $300 on launch and it is many times more powerful than the PS3? What about the PS4, under that situation, cost reducing? I could see a circumstance where Sony would make a newer, better, much faster and more capable console that literally costs less to produce than the PS3 even 5 years into the PS3's life cycle. How does that product manage 10 years?
