10 Reasons why the PlayStation 4 will Launch in 2014

[Gnizmo]

To expand on other reasons why this is BS so it won't seem like useless trolling, I will go through point by point and show were it is a bad article.

Point 1 is where it starts. First and foremost, people aren't liking the fact that they have to learn this new architechture. It happens most times in console generations (kind of an assumption but worse for the PS3 if it is wrong) but this generation is starkly different. You have the Wii, which is very similar to the Gamecube, and the 360 which is very similar to PCs. The Wii has the advantage of a lot of familiarity, and the 360 has the advantage of being similar to another system to port the game onto for more money.

The Wiis advantage will disappear after a while, and is largely mitigated by the motion controls. The 360s advantage, however, will be a big thing for the entire generation. There will always be the option to put in a little bit more work and get the PC market as a possible revenue stream. This all leads people to want to put less work into learning the PS3 since it would be just for the PS3. You get no additional benefit except being able to polish up the games released on the console with the smallest install base.

Point 2 I have already talked about, and is the point where I realized the article was laughable. Claiming DVDs are "quickly running out of momentum," is absolutely laughable. I could understand them trying to claim Bluray picking up a lot of momentum (I don't think it is, but I can see the arguement), but DVD is certainly not on the way out. Further, I don't see why the medium of information dictates when the console is replaced. The PS4 could easily use Bluray as well and have no problems because of it.

Point 3 I don't really understand. There can be peripherals released to help the PS3 along the way, but never has a peripheral existed that helped extend a consoles life span (hai2u Sega CD). The hard drive aspect makes sense to me, but I don't think it will be a deciding factor for when a console will be replaced. If someone can think of a reason it would dictate a new console release, please enlighten me.

Point 4 again confuses me. So the PSN can be fixed, but this would extend the PS3s life span because...? They could (relatively) easily role out a new version of PSN, but that could happen on the PS4 as well.

Point 5 is interesting, I admit. This is an advantage, but I don't think it will be relevant this generation due to timing. The HD revolution will not happen next year. Well at least it does not look likely so far. Maybe 2009, but I think that is still optimistic given the less than stellar 7% growth rate for HDTVs. By that time the 360 and Wii (at current rates) will have a decent install base advatage making it much harder for the PS3 to be dominant long enough to push back the release of the PS4.

Further, the Wii, PS2, PS1, SNES, NES, and especially the DS have all proven that pretty graphics just aren't enough. All these systems were dominant, and all of them were technically inferior than other systems available at the time. Software library will dictate who will "win" a console war. The delay in the ability for the PS3 to use the HD advantage it supposedly has will cause the big titles to slowly drift off the system as we have already seen.

Point 6 is again kind of confusing. A slim version of the PS3 will not be a good replacement for a new game console. It can definatly boost sales, but every other console still has the power to do it as well. This is neither an unique advantage, nor a way to extend a consoles life span so I just don't see how it is relevant.

Point 7 is just a cheap shot at the 360. The entire article is riddled with them (which severely detracts from its credibility), but this looks like nothing but an attack on it. Almost every console ever has been able to break into all the major markets, and releasing a new system has never been the solution. The solution is games, which is what Microsoft has realized. Microsoft will not be trying something desperate with its next console to break into the market, but making more japanese centered games. Still, this is not at all relevant to the longevity of the PS3.

Point 8 is not entirely good either. The eyetoy has not been influential in bringing in the casual gamer at all. The big names that have been influential are not Sony owned. The Sims, and Guitar Hero will not push the PS3 forward unless it becomes dominant and can get them exclusive.

Point 9 is absolutely false. There is no such thing as future proof. There is always some new technology around the corner waiting to mess everything up. What if the new design where there is a seperate physics chp seperate from the CPU and GPU? Then games will start being pushed with that, and the PS3 wll get left behind as old tech. Nothing is future proof.

Point 10 is a good point. I cannot argue with it at all really. I would say that the 10 year plan is far more variable than a hardcore sony faithful like the author would like to admit. If, as a ridiculous example, the PS3 stopped selling altogether tomorrow, the system would not be supported for the next 8 years. That said, Sony will stick it out till the bitter end. The point doesn't stand well on its own, but it can be used in a good arguement.