Max King of the Wild said:
No, he was drawing a parrallel to the stragety they are taking with the Ps3 to the strageties they took with the Ps1 and Ps2. Both of which lasted longer than 10 years AND their predeccesor launched before 10 years. |
huh? wasnt the ps2 released in 2000 and the ps3 in 2006, a six year difference, now in 2006 he is quoted as saying"I think that we are offering a very good value for the consumers. We look at our products having a 10-year life cycle, which we've proven with the PlayStation. Therefore, the PlayStation 3 is going to be a console that's going to be with you again for 10 years. We're not going to ask the consumers to suddenly buy another PlayStation console in five years time, and basically have their investment go by the wayside. So for all those reasons, I think at $599 we're offering a very good value to the consumers" he specifically says not to expect another console in five years time, Why not if the transistion from ps2 to ps3 was only six years isnt five reasonable? Parrallels? As i said before i believe when it came to the ps3, in 06 they believed it would last alot longer before the need to release a new console, But since we're just repeating ourselfs ill end it with this Agreed to Disagree.
"We're in the business of making money" said by every company ever known
