bigCchris said:
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. |
"Our PRODUCTS" meaning the Ps1/2... and like you said the Ps3 launched 6 years after the Ps2... "We look at [ps1 and ps2] having a 10-year cycle, which we have proven." ...So how the hell can their products have a 10 year cycle if they are being launched 5 and 6 years after their predecessors? The obvious answer is they are talking about the entire time its on the shelf and not until the next product launches
And I won't agree to disagree because you are flat out completely wrong. Just accept it
