| Metallicube said: I think malstrom said it best: NOBODY can be this stupid. This is obviously industry propaganda. |
It has to be. Especially after Viper1's post with their old predictions. They predicted that the PS3 would break 120 million in 2005, and again in 2006. Now that we have 3 years of data that basically proved that impossible, they didn't change their numbers? How is that even "analysis" if the new data didn't change their conclusions whatsoever?
| SOLIDSNAKE08 said: how do consumers decide if the ps3 lasts 10 years? only sony decide when that happens. if they keep supporting the ps3 for 10 years then consumers will keep buying it. |
Well there are a few occasions when companies cut off products early, like when MS ditched the XBox to help jumpstart the XBox360 to get a headstart in this generation, or when the Saturn was awkwardly replaced with the DreamCast. But outside of those, a product dies off when consumers decide to stop buying it, when more appealing competition comes along. Sony could support the PS3 for a thousand years, but if one company could just support a console forever and consumers would keep buying it... then every company would do that, and we'd never have new generations of hardware.
Nintendo was still manufacturing and selling new Famicoms in Japan for 20 years, but that didn't boost the Famicom to 120 million sales.
| Hus said: Are all you forgetting Nin openly said they are working on their next hardware. While both Sony and MS have said this will be longest gen ever, its clear neither is in any rush to start the next gen early. Both seem hell bent to milk this gen as long as possible. |
They've all been working on their next hardware for years. They all have whole hardware divisions that start working on their next console the second one launches. But Nintendo is also hell bent on milking this gen as long as possible, because the Wii and DS are currently making more money than the XBox 360, PS3, PSP, and PS2 combined. Why would Nintendo want to cut that short?
